Housing Legislation Amendment Bill

I move, That the Housing Legislation Amendment Bill be now read a second time. This bill is a litmus test as to whether people want houses to be over people’s heads or whether people just want to play politics and play rhetoric. The frank choice for this Parliament is that this bill will get more houses built. What I find so extraordinary from members opposite is that they set up inquiries and they demand that the Government takes a state of emergency on housing and puts the whole country into some civil defence crisis, but they are not prepared to come down to this Parliament and support a practical bill that will actually get houses built. But I am not surprised—I am not surprised.

I will tell you why I am not surprised. Every single time that legislation that will actually get houses built has been before this Parliament, members opposite have voted against it. What happened to the HomeStart scheme? They opposed it. What happened to the fast-tracked unitary plan? They opposed it. What happened in terms of Resource Management Act reform? They opposed it. What happened in terms of the legislation to provide for special housing areas? They opposed it. And now I ask members opposite—and let us talk real facts—how many houses were being built when this Government came to office? The number had dropped to a low of just 12,000 homes across this country. That is the lowest level—the lowest level—of houses that were ever built in my lifetime. The lowest number ever was what this Government inherited.

Well, let us look at how much housing has grown, because, I will be frank, I am proud of my record. This is a graph of the number of houses built in every year back to 1922. In my first year as housing Minister, the number grew by 21 percent. In my second year as housing Minister, the number grew by 23 percent. In my third year as housing Minister the number grew by another 20 percent, and the latest figures show growth of 29 percent. Here is my challenge: tell me during which Minister’s watch there has been faster growth in the number—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! I just want to ask Mr Faafoi not to bring the Speaker into the debate, especially in a disreputable way.

I have got a simple question, Mr Faafoi: name me a Minister under whom there has been stronger growth in the number of houses being built than over the last 4 years.

💬 Carmel Sepuloni: Over the last 4 years?

Over any 4 year period—tell me a period when you have had 4 years of more than 20 percent compound growth in the house-build rate. Tell me any name in any period when there has been faster house growth than in the last 4 years. They are silent because they know there has been phenomenal growth in the number of houses being built over the 4 years. In fact, the truth is that there has been a faster increase in the rate of house building over the last 4 years than in any period, going back to 1922. There have been 29,000 homes built in the last year, and that rate continues to grow.

Then I have the contribution from the member: “Well, Housing New Zealand should get on and build some houses.” Well, here are the facts, guys: in the last year 1,100 homes have been completed by Housing New Zealand—1,100 finished; that is not consented, but finished. What was the maximum number of houses that were built during Helen Clark’s years? I thought they were the people who loved State housing. Actually, they got less than half that number. The very best number that Labour achieved in a year was 640 homes. Hang on a moment—this Government has built more State houses in the last year than any Government in 25 years. So I ask members opposite why they will not support bills that will get houses built. If they are genuine about wanting to get people out of cars and into houses, why will they not support bills before this House that will actually get houses built?

Let us be practical. I want to draw your attention to a very specific press release from Sir Noel Robinson—a very credible gentleman. He wants to build 500 houses in Papakura. Well, anybody in this House would know that that is an area where there is very high housing need. Those 500 homes will not be built—will not be built—according to his press release, without this bill. Five hundred homes, quite specifically, will not be built without this bill. Sir Noel Robinson has spent $2 million on developing his site in Bellfield Road in Papakura. He is committed to building affordable houses, and so I ask members on the opposite side of the House whether they want Sir Noel Robinson to build those 500 houses or not. In voting against this bill at the first reading, they are showing themselves to be part of the problem, not part of the solution.

I want to come, quite specifically, to the issues around the Housing Act, because Governments since 1955 have been doing housing developments under that Act. When those houses have been built, Governments of both National and Labour—and even New Zealand First—persuasions have sold those constructed houses to New Zealanders. There is some doubt—there is a question mark that has been raised—as to whether houses that have been developed by Housing New Zealand, or developed in Weymouth, or built in Hobsonville, have to be offered back to the previous owner. That would be totally contrary to what every Government has done since 1955, and I will tell you why it matters.

Right now, I am in the private market to secure partners—partners with Māori, partners with building companies—to build thousands of houses on Crown land in places like Manukau, places right through Auckland. Would a private sector partner invest hundreds of millions of dollars if there is a question mark as to whether they can sell those houses that are completed? That is why I say to members opposite that if they are serious—serious—about addressing New Zealand’s housing issues and enabling us to build houses on that Crown land, they should support this bill.

I ask members opposite where they are going to build those KiwiBuild houses they promise. Where? They have said that it will be on Crown land. If they oppose this bill, they are, effectively, saying that they would need to offer those blocks of land back to their previous owners and not be able to develop houses on them. In other words, they could not build the very houses that they promise that they will be able to deliver. So I say again to this Parliament: stop the politicking; support the policies that will actually get houses built for Kiwi families. There is only one answer to homelessness, and that is to build more houses. Parties that want houses built will back this bill.

Well, that was like a Punch and Judy show without Judy. That was quite a rant that we heard from the Hon Dr Nick Smith, passionately defending his record. He is much loved by political cartoonists, is Dr Smith. I think it is because drawing him must be such a satisfying task for the nation’s political cartoonists. But I am sorry to say to the Minister that he has become, really, a symbol of failure in this Government’s housing policy. He has come to embody the fiasco—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): I regret interrupting the member. I just do want to warn the member interjecting from my right that his interjection is a reflection on me. He is referring to a matter that is solely mine, and the width of this debate was set by Mr Speaker right back at the beginning. It was very clear that it is a broad debate. So I do not want that sort of reflective interjection, thank you.

This Minister measures his success as building and housing Minister by comparing the rate of residential construction with the depths of the global financial crisis, when demand collapsed in the economy, and, basically, the building industry went dead for at least a couple of years, and many of our skilled tradespeople left the industry and left the country. That is Nick Smith’s benchmark for success: the depths of the global financial crisis.

But notwithstanding all of the bluster that we heard from Dr Smith, it needs to be pointed out that we are still building, in Auckland, fewer houses per year than were being built in 2004—fewer in Auckland than were being built in 2004, and fewer than were being built in the time of Prime Minister Norman Kirk in the mid-1970s. The picture is even more grim if you compare the current build rate with a per-thousand population. Because of the rising population, we are now building fewer houses than at many points over the last 30 years.

The Auckland Unitary Plan Independent Hearings Panel estimated recently that, under this National Government, the shortfall of dwellings in Auckland has built up to the tune of 42,000 dwellings. That is the scale of the shortage that has built up on Dr Smith’s watch. It is currently getting worse by about 4,000 a year, because only about 9,600 new dwellings are being consented annually—you can take 10 percent off that, actually, because the actual build rate is generally about 10 percent less than the consenting rate. So probably only 8,500 dwellings are being built every year in Auckland, when the city needs at least 13,000 just to keep up with population.

I want to say a couple of things about the special housing areas. Part 1 of this bill extends the special housing areas out—from the Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas legislation—by 3 years. So I want to ask the question, really: what is the benefit of the special housing area legislation? We know it is the Government’s main policy when it comes to trying to increase the supply of new housing. The special housing areas are only lines on a map—little zones that, basically, attract fast-tracked consenting. That is all they are. There is no guarantee that houses will be built, and we can see from the numbers that, over 3 years, 154 special housing areas have been gazetted but little more than a third of them, actually, have building consents being issued. After 3 years of this policy, little more than a third of them actually have building consents.

What we can see in the special housing areas is that they have actually been a magnet for land banking. They have encouraged land banking by providing the fast-tracked consenting status. By giving them a kind of special status as special housing areas, they have actually encouraged land banking. You can see one example after another of special housing area land being marketed by real estate agents for land banking—I kid you not. And what did Dr Smith do a couple of months ago when he was asked about land banking in the special housing areas? He said: “Yep, there are 14 special housing areas where they’ve been given their resource consents. They’ve got special housing area status, but they haven’t even applied for building consents.” He promised that he would write a stern letter to those land bankers and threaten them with the full force of—well, I do not actually know what he threatened them with, but he certainly sounded very intent when he was being quizzed about this on television’s Q+A programme. It turned out that he wrote only four letters to the land bankers—four letters—and if you read the letter, it was not really a threatening letter to the land bankers; it was much more of a wet bus ticket where he encouraged them to go and have a conversation with the council. That must have been pretty scary for those land bankers!

The other thing about the housing accords that we know is that very few of them have any real affordability requirements. Len Brown and the Auckland Council, basically, browbeat the Government, in the Auckland Housing Accord, into giving them the power to require that up to 10 percent of new dwellings be affordable, but, actually, in most of the other housing accords around the country—in Wellington, in Nelson, and in Tauranga—Nick Smith and his officials point-blank refused to allow affordability requirements to be included in those housing accords. So, as a result, very few affordable houses have been built, because in an overheated and undersupplied market what happens, of course, is that the developers choose to build more expensive houses so that they can make bigger profits.

So the special housing areas have been underwhelming. They have made very little difference. No one can say with any certainty whether or not they have actually resulted in a net increase in the number of houses that have been built. At best, the special housing areas might have accelerated the development of some houses that were already in the pipeline.

We would vote for Part 1 of this bill to extend the special housing areas, in order to ease the transition problems caused by the poor drafting of the original housing accord and special housing area legislation, which, as has been pointed out in this debate, would cause some cost uncertainty and delay to eight developers in those special housing areas in Auckland unless this legislation is extended. If the bill did only that, then we would have been willing to support it. It is not much, it is no genuine contribution to fixing the housing crisis, and it is resulting in very few houses actually being built and even fewer affordable ones, but we would have been willing to support it, as modest as it is. But we cannot vote for this bill while it includes Part 2, a provision that would take away rights that people have under the Public Works Act, that former owners would have, to have Government land that is being re-designated for the purposes of State housing—it is taking away their right for that land to be offered back to them.

It was very, very illuminating in the first reading debate of this bill when Grant Robertson pointed out that if there was no change required, if the Government already had that right, unfettered, to be able to use the State housing designation to either dispose of land or to use it in housing developments and not have to offer it back to former owners under the Public Works Act—if the State already has that right, why are we here? Why is it in this bill? Why is this bill being rammed through under urgency?

💬 Jono Naylor: So that you can understand it.

Well, I just think the member is being frivolous, if not insulting. There is no reason that we have heard offered in this debate, from the Minister for Building and Housing or from National Government members, why Part 2 is in this bill. The Government says it is clarifying the powers it has to do this, to ignore the offer-back provisions in the Public Works Act, but if that right already exists, if the Government already has that power, why is it legislating it? Why is it pushing it through under urgency? We believe that when you take away people’s property rights, as this bill does, then you should at least do it in a careful, deliberate, and thoughtful way and subject the bill to the normal scrutiny, expert advice, and public submissions that you get in a select committee hearing. Why is this bill being rammed through under urgency?

Finally, I want to say that this bill epitomises the kind of piecemeal tinkering that has characterised the Government’s so-called comprehensive housing agenda, which is not comprehensive at all. It is simply a whole lot of reactive, half-baked policies that are making very little difference.

I rise to take a call on the second reading of this bill. I just realised, as the member Phil Twyford was speaking—I came up with a good fund-raising idea for Mr Phil Twyford. Because of all the flip-flopping, he should have a pair of jandals called “Phil’s Flip-Flops”. It sort of goes on and off, on and off, as a fund-raising idea. Why? Because the reality is that that is what we have, even from that speech. In the first reading, Labour members stood up and said: “We oppose this bill. However, if we separate the bill, we can support the first part but not the second part of the bill.”

The first part of the bill is, obviously, the amendment to the Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Act, which would allow for another 3-year period, and yet Phil Twyford went on in his speech to continue to bag all of the things about the special housing accord Act in itself and what it enables: the fast-tracking of consenting to allow for rezoning for those particular areas. On the one hand, Labour says it supports it; but on the other hand: “Hang on, it’s not that great. It doesn’t work. But we’ll go back again and we’ll support it.” If he would just make up his mind—but I actually think that greater than Havaianas could be “Phil’s Flip-Flops”. That is a good fund-raising idea.

That is the sort of speech that we are hearing from the other side. He knows—when it came to the LVRs, the loan-to-value ratios, he said: “Not a good idea.” All of a sudden, Labour members came in: “It’s a great idea.” Metropolitan urban limits—not a good idea, but all of a sudden it is a great idea. Devolving stock into the community housing providers—what happened? “It’s a great idea”, and then “Not a good idea.”—flip-flop, flip-flop.

This is a comprehensive plan. The special housing areas are not the silver bullet, but they add to the tool box that we know is important in addressing these issues. As for the tool box—why? The Productivity Commission report states that “consenting and the slow process, we know is critical. We know it’s not the whole but is one part of the reasons why we need to build.”

💬 Denis O’Rourke: Table this comprehensive plan. Don’t just talk about it—show us it.

So, Mr Denis O’Rourke—you want to say “Show me the money. Show me the houses.”, so let us talk about this. In June of this year, 2016, the special housing areas—let us talk about the results: 1,300 homes have been completed, 2,200 building consents have been issued, 2,458 new sections have been created, and 7,170 new sections have been granted resource consents, out of the 154 special housing areas in Auckland. We know that is good news, we know it is making a difference—26 have been built on capacity of 29,800, 15 have earthworks under capacity, 5,300, and 88 are in the same stage of the planning process. That is not just talk; those are results. They are facts. That is what is happening.

I know that it is not happening faster; we want it to happen quicker as well. Actually, the points that were made by previous speakers, that only 25 out of the 154 special housing areas have not had consents or plan changes lodged, 16 of which were declared in February and May of this year—hence the reason why, when the question was “Why do we need to put this under urgency?”, we need to ensure that we extend the period of time, that is critically important to this bill, and we think that is important as well.

Here is the other thing about what it will do: it will allow for plan variation for applications that have begun but are not completed under the current Act to continue when a proposed district plan becomes operative. We know that the unitary plan, now that it has finally gone through the Auckland Council, allows for that; hence the reason why the extension will imply that as well. The other thing that I think is important, which maybe gets missed, is that it will also encourage and impose the fact that the consenting and the lodging of those consents for housing must be done within a 12-month period of time. We think that is important. It will be able to fast track the ability to say that if you are going to apply for a special housing accord area, then you need to enact that within a certain period of time. We think that is important as well.

Why the 3 years? House prices continue to rise and the supply of housing continues to lag behind demand. The extension of this by 3 years will allow for additional special housing areas to be established, and it will provide a faster housing development and increase housing supply. We think that is critically important as well.

I just want to finish off my speech here, in the second reading, by talking about some of the results that we think are critically important around this area. Again, this is part of a suite of tools that we think are important. There are 85,000 new houses to be built in this term of Parliament, and 40 houses are built every working day. When the National Party came into Government in 2008, there were, on average, 10 houses being built every day. We know that it is making a difference, exactly at 40 houses being built every working day in Auckland. This is four times what it was when National was elected in 2008. Over 2,000 homes are to be built on Crown land. We have freed up land in Auckland and in Christchurch. We know that it is making a difference. We think this is important. We see it as pragmatic.

I know that Mr Phil Twyford supports it, because he has said so. It is only the second party that does not support it. But when we talk about this bill and what it is enabling us in regard to building more—to the demand—we think it is making a difference. I commend this bill to the House.

That speech was a little bit disappointing. I just want to point out the fact that, firstly, I do not understand what he was talking about with regard to saying that my colleague Phil Twyford has flip-flopped. He has not flip-flopped on anything. We have been quite assertive in respect of our housing plans. The same cannot be said for that side of the House. Alfred Ngaro talked about some random fund-raiser that Phil Twyford should have. Well, actually, the fund-raiser that that member has been involved in is selling our State houses. What kind of a fund-raiser is that, Alfred Ngaro? He should be ashamed of himself. I am sure there are a whole lot of people in the electorate of Te Atatū, which he is trying to win off the current electorate MP Phil Twyford, who do not support the decisions that he has made, alongside his Government, in respect of selling State housing that has been built up over generations, by generations of New Zealanders. He sold out. OK, Mr Deputy Speaker, back to the bill.

Can I just say that one of the really disappointing parts of this, given the fact that we have been given the responsibility by the public—we are elected representatives and we are here to scrutinise legislation, to make sure that we are giving New Zealanders the best deal possible. It is really concerning that we have only half a regulatory impact statement here.

There are two parts to the bill. We have made it really clear that we do not have any major issue with Part 1, apart from the fact that it has not been that effective to date, but that does not mean we would necessarily throw it out. But we do have major reservations about Part 2. The only regulatory impact statement we have is for Part 1 of the bill, which we on this side of the House would have no problem voting for if it was split off by Part 2, which actually does need further scrutiny.

I want to talk a little bit about Part 2 and speak to some of the reservations that we have. Basically, with Part 2 we are looking at the Public Works Act and the offer-back changes. Clause 10 of the Housing Legislation Amendment Bill amends section 15 of the Housing Act to state that sections 40 to 42 of the Public Works Act do not apply to the sale of State housing land. A specific subclause states that this change does not affect the right of first refusal under any Treaty of Waitangi claims settlement or collective redress Act or deed. Minister Smith has advised us that the purpose of this is to prevent a situation where the Crown develops housing on land and, upon completion, a person decides to use their offer-back rights to purchase the completed development.

The Minister has given us his assurance—I am not sure how much that counts for—that this provision could be used only for developments and would not be used for the sale of existing State housing stock held by Housing New Zealand. The Minister has argued that this change enhances the rights of Māori, as the right of first refusal is protected and the removal of the offer-back provision means that there is greater ability to negotiate agreements with Māori for housing developments.

💬 Meka Whaitiri: How many have entered into agreements?

My colleague Meka Whaitiri has asked how many Māori, how many iwi, have entered into agreements. But I also want to say that on that side of the House the Minister is arguing that this enhances the rights of Māori. The Māori members on this side of the House, and the Labour Party in general, do not think that is the case, so we will not be supporting it. But also, let us look across the floor. We did notice, at the end of the first reading, who did not support this bill. Not only did the Labour Party, New Zealand First, and the Green Party vote against this bill at first reading but the Māori Party did too. That is the political party, in partnership with the Government, that is supposed to be advocating for Māori. So here they are saying that, actually, when they vote against it—what that says to us is that they do not believe that that enhances the rights of Māori either. We on this side of the House already knew that was the case, but it reinforces that that is the fact.

Labour has concerns that this provision will not give Māori the protection that the Minister says it does, and that the provision could be used to make it easier for the Government to go through its State house sell-off. The Government’s claim that this is merely a clarification is tenuous, given the Ngāti Whātua incident. As part of the Government’s Auckland surplus Crown land programme, the Government sought to use the Housing Act to circumvent Ngāti Whātua’s right of first refusal under the Tāmaki Collective deed of settlement. Ngāti Whātua challenged this in court, and the Government ended up settling the case in order to stop the legal action. That the Government was willing to settle in that case shows the law is far from certain, and this situation could apply to an offer-back provision, just as it could for Ngāti Whātua’s right of first refusal.

We cannot support a provision like this going through under urgency. We need it to be properly scrutinised. It is disgusting that the Government has tried to circumvent the proper process here by not allowing it to go to a select committee and by trying to wrap it up. The Government does have a habit of doing this—putting something that we will not support or that we do not want to support, and that it knows we will not want to support, alongside something that we would not mind supporting, in an attempt to try to get us to sell out and, basically, agree to the whole thing. In this situation, we are not going to do that, I say to the National Government.

We have been really sensible with our advice and with our proposal, on this side of the House, by saying to the Government to just split the bill in two. Split the bill in two, and then, even though we have some reservations about Part 1, we can support Part 1, but we cannot support Part 1 with Part 2 alongside it and with that being part of the deal. It is a dodgy deal, and we will not be supporting it.

It was disappointing to hear Nick Smith at the beginning of this second reading debate on the Housing Legislation Amendment Bill, because he seemed to take his whole 10 minutes, or at least 9 minutes and 55 seconds of his 10 minutes, just trying to justify his track record. What that says to us on this side of the House is that he is feeling really sensitive right now. I am sure that even some of his colleagues are a little bit critical of the fact that he has done very little to address the housing issues that we face in this country. I am sure that his colleagues are coming under pressure from some of their constituents as well. When looking at some of the developments that have or have not happened under this National Government, those members should be a little bit concerned about what is happening in their electorates.

Actually, it is quite timely that the New Plymouth MP is here, because one of those developments is in his electorate. Eight years ago the New Plymouth community was told that it was going to get a redevelopment, that Marfell was going to be redeveloped. Over that time it has had houses pulled out, it has got houses that have been boarded up, and now, 8 years later, nothing is happening there. Eight years later there is no additional housing. There is less housing than there was 8 years ago. When we put in an Official Information Act request to try to find out where the Government is at in respect of this housing development, what we got back was a report that says that, actually, it has decided there is no real need for any more State housing in this area and also it could not find a partner to partner with, so the Government has decided that this probably will not go ahead.

Actually, in the context of the housing crisis that we face in New Zealand, with over 41,000 people homeless, and in the context locally there, or the emergency shelter telling me it has had a 33 percent increase in the last year in people needing emergency shelter because they are homeless, I find it really difficult to comprehend that that member for New Plymouth and that National Government can say that there is no need for any further Housing New Zealand development in that area, and to leave it empty, like a ghost town. If you go there it is so eerie. We know that there are so many families that do need homes in that area, but they have been neglected by their local member, Jonathan Young. They have been neglected by the National Government, which continues to make excuses for not building houses, when all it needs to do is build them.

So my advice to Nick Smith is to get rid of the pipeline, get rid of the consents, get rid of the anger that he is clearly carrying and the sensitivities that he is carrying about the poor job that he has done in his role, and actually just get on with building some houses. That is what we proposed on this side of the House. The National Government would do itself a service if it just picked up Labour’s KiwiBuild policy.

I was privileged enough to sit down at a wedding a couple of years ago, and I happened to be sitting next to a mutual friend who was a builder in Auckland. The wedding was in Palmerston North, but he was down there from Auckland for the wedding, and I said to him: “What are the challenges that you really think are facing us, in terms of the challenges that we’re facing with rising Auckland housing prices and otherwise?”. He said it was pretty simple to him: it was the restriction of supply brought about by the changes that the Auckland City Council had made to the district plan. He said that what we do need to do is get the process moving a lot quicker, and get it so that we can actually get more houses built.

In 2013 we had the special housing areas put in place, and what that enabled us to do was—as a short-term measure at that time—fast track housing development and address those constraints on housing supply. It has been successful in that, to the point that we are actually seeing a huge number of houses built compared with what was happening before those housing areas were put in place. We have seen a huge number of consents being processed since those were put in place. It does not just happen instantly—that houses are magically built. I know that those members on the other side of the House think they can have a policy where they wave a magic wand and houses will simply appear, but it does take a process.

These special housing areas have been successful in speeding up the process. There is still a need for this to continue over another 3 years. So, quite succinctly, the primary purpose of this bill is to extend that for a longer period of time so that we can remove that constraint on housing supply in Auckland and help get this moving a lot better for those people in Auckland.

I watched the Minister stand and do quite a bit of shouting and try to justify his failures based on a reflection on history. But, of course, every Minister will stand and fall on their record, and this Minister’s record—along with the other two Ministers who are also responsible for housing. So the three Ministers in this National Government—

💬 Marama Davidson: Three? All of them?

They assigned three. Well, arguably, that is why we are in such a disaster. It took three of them to create the legacy of the highest levels of homelessness we have seen in a generation—Nick Smith can stand on that record. The lowest rate of homeownership that we have seen in a generation or two—Nick Smith can stand on that record. The record high prices, where the average house in Auckland now costs $1 million—well, Nick Smith can certainly stand on that record.

💬 Marama Davidson: Well done!

Yeah, well done, Nick Smith! Increasing rents to the extent that ordinary families are being driven out of rental properties and into homes in cars, and garages—Nick Smith can stand on that record. He can stand there and argue about history all he likes; New Zealand will look on his time as Minister—his history—and rightly judge his failings as a housing Minister against the record that he has created. For all of the posturing and the shouting that goes on, that is his record, and what is his response to that record? His response is this bill: a continuation of a failed policy in Auckland, and the removal of property rights from a wide range of New Zealanders, none of whom he could identify when asked about that.

So his record of failure will continue, and it would just be a usual political issue, I guess, that you would expect of this National Government, except that it is not Nick Smith who suffers; it is thousands and thousands of New Zealand families, young New Zealanders, and elderly New Zealanders, who are all looking for secure, decent, and affordable homes to live in. In a country as rich, beautiful, and resourceful as ours, this Government has somehow driven our housing to the worst possible state we could expect, where so many New Zealanders can now not afford to rent a home or to buy a home. That is the record of Nick Smith, the other two housing Ministers appointed to oversee the debacle, and this National Government as a whole.

I do want to just, in my time in the second reading—time that we would have spent, had any of this gone to a select committee, talking about the effects of this legislation on New Zealanders. We would have heard submissions from people involved in speculation: people who are developers, speculators, and investors. We would have heard from families who live around these areas who are concerned about the extent to which they were locked out of consultation because of the fast-track consent process that is built into the special housing area legislation. We would have heard from those who had provided land to the State for housing areas and other public works, who were going to be declined the ability to have the offer back—so who would not be offered back the land that they had gifted or provided to the State—and about the effect of this bill on them. We would have been able to make a much better assessment of the impacts of this legislation on New Zealanders, because we would have talked with New Zealanders about the bill and its impact.

That is what the select committee process is for. That is the core of the democratic approach to legislation that we have built in this country—that we in this room might make the final decisions, but we do it after consulting with the country, which is impacted by the decisions that we make. That is our core function as members of this House of Representatives—that we go out and speak with our people about the laws that we are intending to pass. But, of course, that is not happening with this legislation, because, despite the fact that these are substantive issues and we could have spent some time talking with New Zealanders about them, National will not allow those voices to be heard. National has shut down the debate with the public about the impact of the special housing areas and the need for real solutions to the housing crisis. National shut down—or tried to shut down—the homelessness inquiry. The Opposition took that on board itself and went out and spoke with New Zealanders, and now National is trying to shut down any real analysis of the impact of the special housing areas on New Zealanders—their failings, and even, potentially, their advantages.

So when we make decisions about this bill today, National can be assured that it does not know what the effect of this bill will be. National members will vote for this legislation not knowing what the impact will be on New Zealanders, because they have deliberately chosen not to listen to New Zealanders’ views. That is the value that the National Government holds for our core democratic processes here. The National Government does not want to hear from New Zealanders about the impact of this legislation; hence we are in urgency for this bill.

I just want to put on the record the three Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) that the Green Party is putting forward on this legislation, as we move from this debate into the Committee stage. Just very briefly—we will go into them in more detail in the Committee stage of this bill. The first of the SOPs deletes clause 10, which is the clause that relates to the disposal of State land. That is the clause that will mean that people will not be offered back the land that they have given to the State for a public purpose. We want to delete the clause to protect New Zealanders’ property rights where they have provided land to the State for a particular purpose but this National Government does not want to give it back to them.

There is a second SOP, which amends section 14 of the original legislation. Section 14 of the original legislation defines a qualifying development. Section 14(1)(d) says that a qualifying development will not contain less than a certain percentage of affordable housing. It is a little bit oblique as to what that percentage is, and it is certainly oblique as to what the definition of affordable is. So my SOP will change the original legislation to say that, in effect, the definition of affordable housing is a price at, or less than, four times the median household income. Four times the median household income—it is described as a “median multiple” in economic language—is a way of describing affordability in a technical way. It allows for some flexibility in price because it is related both to income, the median household income, and to the price of housing. Four times the median household income has been supported, actually, by the Minister for Building and Housing, Nick Smith, as being about right for an affordable house. But there is no obligation in the special housing areas for homes to be provided at or below that price, and that needs to be changed.

Finally, the third SOP will change this bill to allow for the eight current developers and the eight special housing areas in Auckland to continue with their consent application process but will not allow for any further special housing areas to be developed. The reason for that is we must not allow this failed policy to continue in Auckland until there are provisions to stop land banking. Unless there are provisions to stop land banking, allowing more special housing areas in Auckland will simply drive up prices, create wealth for land bankers and speculators, and not deliver actual affordable homes for New Zealanders to live in.

So we have three SOPs on the Table. They deal with the core concerns that the Green Party has with this bill. We invite members to consider seriously those SOPs and to support them if they agree with us about those concerns. We will at least try to fix this legislation even though National has done such an appalling job initially. Thank you.

I want to begin by taking a look at the speech given by the “Minister of Houselessness”, Nick Smith, because nowhere in his speech does he say why another 3 years of special housing areas (SHAs) without Government investment in land-purchasing development, in Auckland in particular, could work. Nowhere does he say in his speech how another 3 years of SHAs, while low-quality open-door immigration is taking place, could possibly work—because that is what is happening. Seventy-thousand people per year net are coming into this country—a number that is equivalent to the size of a city like Nelson coming into this country—but there is no care about the fact that they are going to drive demand for housing, drive up prices, and drive up rents. Nowhere in the Minister’s speech was there any reference to the problems caused by overseas purchasers, who, in this country, are still free to buy land, to speculate, and to land bank. Nowhere were any of those issues referred to in the Minster’s speech.

He just does not care—and the truth is that National actually has no strategy whatsoever that deals with those issues, or any other. Its members’ pretence that they have a comprehensive housing strategy is utterly ludicrous. Nobody in this country believes that, and the more they say it the more they will show how dishonest they are being about all of that—and that is the truth of it. The truth is that the National Party under the likes of Holyoake, for example, used to be the party for a “property-owning democracy”—those were his words—in New Zealand. But no more—no more. This is not that National Party; this is some neo-liberal monster that is no longer fit to govern this country.

I also want to talk about the Māori Party. Why are its members not speaking in this debate? Why is it not attacking National, and why is it not actually fighting this fight? I cannot understand that, because this legislation, which is being fast tracked today through all of its stages, is aimed at flogging off State houses and is failing to provide a strategy for the building of new homes in New Zealand, whether for purchase or for rent. It is doing so without consultation or proper scrutiny through the select committee process. So I want to hear from the Māori Party members on all of these things because I think the Māori Party is speaking, if it is speaking at all, with a forked tongue. On the one hand it promotes Treaty rights and says it will protect Treaty rights for Māori in this country, but it is failing here and now to fight against a bill that actually removes those Treaty rights because it removes the offer-back provisions, which would otherwise be claimable under current legislation. Irrespective of the Minister’s claims that that is not the case, that is actually the truth about the matter. So I want to hear more from the Māori Party members, and I want to hear them show up like the rest of us and fight against this bill. They are not doing so and I deplore that.

The Minister has also claimed that he is just clarifying the law when it comes to those offer-back provisions and he says there is no actual law change. Well, if it is necessary to pass this bill to amend the law, then—hello—it must be a law change; therefore, the Minister can only be wrong that the Minister is not attempting to change the law to make sure that those offer-back provisions can never apply. That is what New Zealand First objects to, it is what the Māori Party should be objecting to, and it is what other parties object to.

The bill is a panic measure by a Minister not on top of his portfolio—and when did this Minister suddenly realise that time is running out for special housing areas? Why, within 10 days of the termination date, is he suddenly bringing this bill to the House if there is a comprehensive housing strategy? Surely it would be a better strategy than that—if there was one—but we all know that there is not one. What there is instead is plenty of evidence of a failed strategy. In fact, there is no strategy at all and plenty of evidence of an absence by this Government of any new ideas at all. All it can come up with is an expansion of a current, failed policy, which over 3 years has actually delivered only 1,300 houses—less than a drop in the bucket as far as Auckland is concerned. So there it is: a panic measure to do little or nothing and to crush people’s rights in terms of the offer-back provisions along the way.

Just to summarise New Zealand First’s position: first of all, it believes that there is no justification for the law change—and that is what it is—to remove the offer-back provisions. There is no need for that whatsoever. All it does is to feed on this Government’s panic and need to be seen to be doing something. That is not in the interests of New Zealand; it is certainly not in the interests of people who actually might claim those rights and might claim them for very good reasons. That is what a democracy is about. It is about protecting people’s rights—and that is not what this Government is doing. It is doing the exact opposite and it is not good enough.

Secondly, the need is not only to increase the time for the SHAs to work—if they ever do—but for the Government to actually invest in the purchase of land and in the development of land, and not just leave it to private developers to do so. The reason why that is so important and why that is a core part of New Zealand First’s housing policy is that the private market will never meet the needs of New Zealanders in this day and age, as far as housing is concerned. The Government must take part, with direct investment and direct development of housing in New Zealand, especially in Auckland, so that we get enough housing, on time, in the right place, and developed in a way that people can afford, with modestly sized houses saleable at modest prices and with Government assistance to purchase.

New Zealand First’s policy is to sell sections over 25 years, allowing a purchaser to get a first mortgage to build their own home. That is just a common-sense policy—but do not ask this Government to listen to common sense. All it wants to do is to continue with its failed policies that are never going to work. So we in New Zealand First oppose both parts of this bill, unlike the Labour Party, which I now hear is quite happy to support the first part but not the second. I am disappointed in that, because I would have hoped that the Labour Party would have seen that, actually, you need to do more than just have failed SHAs; you need to have Government investment. Labour has said that; yet why did it say to this House that it would support the first part of the bill?

💬 Phil Twyford: It’s better than nothing.

It is better than nothing? It is nothing. It is not better than nothing, Mr Twyford; it actually is nothing. So the Labour Party is supporting nothing. That is wonderful. Well, I think the Labour Party should take another look at all this. The Labour Party should take another look at why it would support the first part. We in New Zealand First do not. We will not have it. We insist on much better than that. We insist on a policy that does not just provide an extension of a time frame for a failed policy. We want to see Government investment. We want to see real commitment by this Government to housing in this country. That is why we will not support it: because we want much better. And we want people’s rights to be protected, as well. We will not vote for this bill, because it does not do either thing that it proposes to do in a way that we could possibly support, and New Zealanders should not accept that either.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, for this opportunity to take a call to speak on the second reading of the Housing Legislation Amendment Bill. I am taking this call to support this bill. First, I want to congratulate the Minister, the Hon Nick Smith, for his dedication to improving housing supply and affordability. We know the Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Act 2013 was meant to be a short-term measure to fast track housing development, and that is because we are committed to addressing the issue of housing supply and affordability. These issues of housing supply and affordability are not unique to us. Yes, these issues that we are facing here in New Zealand are not unique to us. These issues are actually a sign of a country doing well—a sign of a strong, growing economy. Yes, these issues are signs of a strong, growing economy.

I am a list MP based in Mt Roskill, so my interest is in Auckland. Along with other parts of the country, Auckland has made significant progress since starting its housing accord. Since the start of the Auckland housing accord, 33,000 sections have been created and dwellings consented—that is 33,000 in Auckland. So the extension of the Act is important because it is about housing supply and affordability, it is about keeping that momentum going, and it is about allowing the transition to the unitary plan in a smoother manner.

The unitary plan is important to Auckland, and the independent hearings panel did a huge job. It was a huge task. It did it in time, which was great. The unitary plan is crucial for Auckland’s future. We want to see this momentum keep going, and it is really important that we support housing supply and affordability because this industry, through construction of residential places, is not just about housing supply and affordability but is also about supporting the creation of several jobs.

If the Labour Party, the Green Party, and the New Zealand First Party are keen on stabilising house prices, then they should support this bill. On this side, we are fully committed. I support this bill and commend it to the House. Thank you.

The next call is a split call. Marama Davidson—5 minutes.

So, yes, I am here for the second reading. I am still not supporting the Housing Legislation Amendment Bill—that has not changed.

💬 Metiria Turei: It’s only been an hour.

I know. Actually, by the way, before I carry on, who was it who riled up the Minister for Building and Housing? Was it you, Phil? I think it might have been Carmel or Denis. Actually, it was probably Metiria. Who riled him up? Someone riled him up. He got up and he felt it necessary to defend the houses being built and the consents. He is such a good Minister, he got up and said: “But look at the houses I built; look at the consents I agreed to.” Those are his measurements of success. Those are not measurements of success. That is not an indicator of how well our country is doing, when you get up and have a little rant about how many houses you have built—just a raw number; it was not even in any context. He did not even talk about the number of State houses that the Government has either flogged off and not replaced or, in comparison, the number that have been left to rot and are currently empty.

If we had gone through the proper democratic process for this bill, we would have heard from submitters. We would have heard from people, including those like the ones that the Greens and Labour and the Māori Party heard from in our homelessness inquiry. They were very clear when they said that all of the Government’s proposals to date, all the of the Government’s actions to date, and any of the proposals—including the little panic one we had yesterday from the Minister Paula Bennett to try to sort of make her look sympathetic to us wrapping up our homelessness inquiry—were inadequate. We would have heard submitters saying how woefully, woefully inadequate these band-aid attempts are, including this legislation.

So because we have not heard from them, I wanted to make sure that I brought their voices and their say into this House of Representatives. As my co-leader Metiria Turei just pointed out, that is what we are. We are supposed to be representative of our country, not just of developers and not just of overseas speculators, whom this Government is continuing to enable to build more wealth, while our own beautiful people, our beautiful people whom I love—do you love them, Government? Do you love our people?—are the ones in garages, crowding in houses, or just even renting homes that they could easily be shoved out of at any time. You know why? Because the housing market is amazing! Owners—because of this Government—are able to flick off a house in Auckland and also give as little as 90 days’ notice to be able to do that to any family, to any tenants, and to any renters, because they will get a massive profit. So it is preferable to be able to shove our people, our beautiful New Zealanders, out of their rental homes and out of their secure places rather than to actually allow houses to be a home where people can put down roots.

This bill does not do anything to address that—this bill does not. In actual fact, the attempt to specifically address land banking in the special housing areas only goes so far as to impose a time limit for consent applications—that is it. It does not actually put any time limit on the actual building—just for getting a consent in. It is a half again: half mop, half band-aid; a half-a-fire hose attempt at fixing this crisis.

Just very quickly, in my last minute, even the Cabinet papers admit that this was a rush, because the regulatory impact statement did not even cover the entire bill—that is how rushed this was. Also, Mr Smith, the Minister, oversold this to his own Cabinet. He said that if this bill was not rushed through, it was going to prevent 3,000 homes from being built; then this morning he had to concede that that figure was actually 2,000. What is going on? What is going on, Minister? I do not know what is going on—you are just overselling legislation to your own Cabinet. I will just leave it there. Thanks.

I rise on behalf of the ACT Party in support of this bill. Was it not fascinating to listen to the last minute of the speech by the member who just resumed her seat, Marama Davidson, when she actually got on to addressing the bill, instead of being a bundle of self-righteous fury with nothing constructive to add, no solutions, and no real understanding of what is being debated by other members?

What I would like to address is the fact that these housing markets that we have in New Zealand are dysfunctional. The number of houses built in Auckland in the past decade is 20 percent fewer than in the 1990s, despite very strong price signals that the supply of housing in Auckland needed to rise. That is a dysfunctional market. Unfortunately, over a long period of time—8 years now—this Government has done what the Government before it did: nothing substantial to change the dynamics of that market. These special housing areas, I am sorry to say, are an island of fantasy in a sea of dysfunctional markets. They symbolise a belief that the Government can somehow wish away the dynamics that have led to dysfunction in our housing markets in a few small areas, and suspend all of the things that it has not fixed anywhere else.

Of course, if the Government was serious, there would be serious Resource Management Act reforms, serious reform of the laws around building and land use planning, and a serious consideration of the fiscal incentives that councils have. At the moment, councils get most of the cost of development while central government gets most of the revenue. So it is not surprising that councils are unwilling to do, or allow, a great deal of building in their jurisdictions, or that we have a shortage of supply—an inelastic supply—of housing, rising prices, and all of the social, economic, and financial problems that that creates.

It is with some regret that we sit under urgency supporting this bill, which is really tacking on this—should we say—an island of fantasy in a sea of dysfunctional housing markets tonight, in order that we can carry on with the few projects that have actually succeeded. This is not to mention the various perverse incentives that have come out of the special housing areas to date.

Part 2 is considerably more concerning. If Part 1 is merely not very effective, then Part 2 of this bill, both in terms of property rights and in terms of procedure, should be of great concern to New Zealanders. What it says is that this Government, or any future Government—and, colleagues, sometimes that is one thing we need to think about—can take land, acquired, perhaps, under the Public Works Act for one purpose, and then develop housing on it and dispose of it without any of the normal safeguards of right of first refusal to the original owner. I am a bit surprised that the Labour Party and the Green Party and New Zealand First are opposed to that; generally speaking, they want the Government to be developing housing through any means necessary. Oddly enough, it is the National Government—from the party of free enterprise, occasionally—which appears to be proposing that the Government be able to ride roughshod over normal property rights in order to build low-cost housing.

It is a topsy-turvy world, but I think one thing that is going to be very clear is that the Committee stage of this debate, or of this compressed reading, is going to be very, very interesting. I am looking forward to seeing what Supplementary Order Papers are sitting on the Table that might ameliorate the difficulties we have, as a House, with aggregating New Zealanders’ property rights in due process under the Public Works Act in a single night of urgency, particularly when members on my immediate left think hard about what that might mean in the hands of future Governments. I am not quite sure where that Committee stage is going to land, but it is somewhere that members need to focus their attention very carefully, because to start aggregating safeguards of New Zealanders’ property rights in the middle of the night under urgency is not the way that the ACT Party believes we should be doing things in this House.

So with those comments, I will resume my seat, supporting this bill in its second reading, but I think there is the potential for things to evolve a little bit as the night goes on. Thank you.

I stand in support of this Housing Legislation Amendment Bill at its second reading. We have heard a lot of rhetoric today, and in recent weeks—even in recent months—about the need to provide more housing in New Zealand. Yet, when this opportunity is before the House on an issue we are all agreed on, the need to provide more housing, the Opposition cannot bring itself to support a bill that provides the very tools that we will see maintaining the momentum, making land available, and getting houses built.

In a strong and growing economy, which is managed ably by this National-led Government, we are seeing more and more New Zealanders staying home and coming home—such is their confidence in this country now, and in this Government. However, National’s comprehensive housing plan is further complemented by this bill. We understand the need to ensure that this bill is passed through this House, because we want to support more Kiwis getting into their homes.

The Hon Nick Smith can be rightly proud of his role in achieving the highest number of houses being built in this country, and the passage of this bill through the House is essential to supporting more new houses for Kiwi families. I support this bill. Thank you.

The next call is a split call. Peeni Henare—5 minutes.

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Thank you for this opportunity. I rise in the second reading of the Housing Legislation Amendment Bill. Just for a brief moment there, Mr Seymour surprised me, and I think it goes back to his days at the TDC Sawmills in Whangarei, where he actually saw the benefit of working alongside a union to make sure that he got the contract he deserved while he was working there. So when you are ready, brother, come—

💬 David Seymour: I seek leave to make a personal explanation.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): What is the personal explanation about?

💬 David Seymour: No one at that sawmill was unionised.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): No. No, I will not accept that.

Thank you very much. Look, I heard the Minister this evening talk about the Acts that have happened in his generation. What that spoke to, to me, was the inability of this Government to actually look into the future for future generations. I consider the Millennials. I am one of the younger members of this House, and I think sadly about my generation, who, it is well known, struggle to get into the housing market.

💬 David Seymour: Can we just talk about the bill?

Mr Seymour, I would love to talk to the detail of this bill, but, having rushed through this process, I am sad to say that there is just a sheer lack of consultation, a sheer lack of strong review, to allow us to debate this properly. We have always pushed for this to go through the right process. Let us look at other occasions where we failed to go through the right process. I think about a place in Tāmaki-makau-rau. People today call it Ihumātao; its original name is Te Ihu o Mataoho. A failed process led to a long protest from the people of Ihumātao. A failed process meant that under the guise of social housing, under the guise of needing to build more homes, people had their rights transgressed—people had their rights taken away from them. The people of Ihumātao suffered from this Government’s poor process, and here we are again, going through this particular bill, rushing it through the House, not allowing the democratic process for iwi, for Māori housing providers, and for the homeless to have their say on this particular bill.

I recently asked the Minister of Finance written questions about what kind of consultation this Government had undertaken when it decided to sell off the State housing stock. “What Urban Māori authorities, if any, has the Minister consulted with in regards to the sale of Housing New Zealand properties under the Housing Amendment Act 2016?” Answer: “None,”. “What Urban Māori authorities, if any, have expressed an interest in purchasing Housing New Zealand properties under the Housing Amendment Act 2016?” Answer: “None.” “How many Housing New Zealand properties have been sold to iwi under the Housing Amendment Act 2016, if any?” Answer: “None,”.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Thank you once again for this opportunity. Before the dinner break and the excellent chicken curry, I was making reference to the faults around process. I talked about the State housing sell-off and the engagement with iwi and Māori housing providers, and how the answer to all of the questions I posed was “None”—no consultation, no sales to those people.

To Part 2—and I want to pick up the point that Mr Seymour made. Actually, with regard to the Treaty of Waitangi and the right of first refusal, those who have already settled, Ngāti Whātua ki Ōrākei and Te Kawerau ā Maki—theirs are just two of the Acts of recent times that come to mind, where their rights will be protected under their right of first refusal. This House has already mentioned how that particular process was also fumbled by this Government. We know that Ngāti Whātua were refused the right of first refusal. They took that to court, challenged that decision, and the court found in their favour. Now their rights are protected, and good on them.

But I want to pick up the point Mr Seymour made about those who do not belong to those iwi collectives, those property owners who were there many years ago when their land was acquired under the Public Works Act. Where are their rights? Where are their rights? As much as I have advocated for the rights under the Treaty of Waitangi and the Treaty settlement process that takes place in this House, it is important to remember in this conversation that the housing crisis affects everybody, so it is important that we look after their rights too.

Just in conclusion, I stand here on behalf of the Labour Party, and, of course, we look forward to the next stage of this bill. Kia ora.

I call Meka Whaitiri—5 minutes.

Ā, e Te Māngai o Te Whare, tēnā koe, e ngā mema o Te Whare nei, tēnā tātou katoa. I am pleased to take a call on the Housing Legislation Amendment Bill. When I got word from our whips that we were having urgency, I was quite excited. I thought I would come down and hear that this Government is finally listening to the cries of Labour and many of the people we represent and introducing a bill that addresses KiwiBuild, for example; building a 100,000 affordable homes. I thought: “Jeez, I will be coming down and standing up in support of that, or a bill that would eliminate speculation in our housing market, maybe”—that would have been a good idea—“or what about extending the brightline test for another 5 years so we can take the pressure out of the housing market?”. I thought I was coming to the Chamber to stand up and support that. But, alas, when I came to the Chamber and read the bill, I thought: “This is unfortunate.” Generally, when we get to the second reading of a bill, we have had the privilege of taking the bill to a select committee. There are areas of this particular bill—and others have covered them; we have got two areas—where it would have been advantageous to the Government to hear from people who are most affected by this bill. This Government, the Minister himself, has denied those very people the opportunity to present, and there could have been an improvement on the bill, like many submitters actually do. But we will never know, because we are hearing this bill under urgency.

So when I look at the information we have got in front of us, I want to reference my contribution to Minister’s Nick Smith’s own Q and A on the Beehive website. Under “Housing Legislation Amendment Bill—Q and A September 2016”, a question he answers is: “Why has the Act been extended by three years?”. Of course we want to ensure there is transition coverage for those who have started the process, but I thought that if you were going to extend it, you would actually take the time to understand the extent of the problem that we are trying to fix. Under the Minister’s own question: “What happens to SHAs that have not lodged consents for qualifying developments before 16 September 2016?”, it says that those that have been gazetted before 16 September 2015 and have yet to get consents will be disestablished. Those that have been lodged after 16 September 2015 have 12 months to lodge.

That sounds all very good, but when you get down to the end of the Minister’s answer, it says this: “I have discretion to extend this time limit for new SHAs if I believe best endeavours have been made…”. That for me undermines the decision that councils have around giving those consents. Then I looked at: “Will other Housing Accords be established?”. Of course, I am a proud member of Ikaroa-Rāwhiti and we have housing issues that are real in the regions. That was the other reason why I got excited about this bill. I thought: “Finally—finally—this Government was going to deal with the issues in the regions where we are struggling to house our people.” By way of example, 377 homes in the Hawke’s Bay have been flogged off—377. How many have been built since National has been in Government? Seven—seven homes. There is an absolute need in our regions, and when I look at this bill, it does not even address the opportunities that are real in the regions. I wanted to come to this House to fly the regional flag, because this Government seems to forget about our regions.

Finally, in the minute that I have left, I want to make a short contribution about Part 2 of this bill. I support the calls from this side of the Chamber that it is too important not to go to select committee. There is only a very short explanation from the Minister’s very own question and answer around why we need to change the Housing Act. I have read the clauses in the bill. It talks about the fact that existing Treaty settlements will be protected, but what about the future ones? I listen intently to all members on that side of the Chamber to hear how we are going to safeguard future Treaty settlements under this piece of legislation. So that is why I stand in support of Labour on this particular bill. It goes well short of addressing the housing shortages we have throughout this country, and if the Government was listening, it would separate the bill and we could address it appropriately. Kia ora.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, for allowing me to speak and contribute on this Housing Legislation Amendment Bill. The previous speaker, Meka Whaitiri, mentioned that the Government does not have any plan, but I would like to clarify that this Government has a comprehensive plan to address the issue of housing supply and affordability, and the issues associated with our strong, growing economy. It is very important, we need to understand, that this economy is growing, and more and more houses are required because people are staying here.

It is important to understand that we have to free up the land so that the builders can build the houses that are much in need. With this bill, we will be able to free up more land and help builders to build a house. It is important legislation, and we are looking forward to this vote from all sides of the House, but unfortunately the Opposition is not at all happy to support such legislation. Opposition members keep complaining about it, but they do not want to support the Government when it is taking steps to address it. Thank you.