Housing Legislation Amendment Bill

This has been a rather hefty, vigorous debate tonight. All sorts of things have been flying across the Chamber, including from the member David Seymour, about me and my speeches. I have not once chosen to stand and take offence at any of them because this is a vigorous debate and I am up for it, including right now. And, actually, after all of this, all I was going to say and suggest to Mr David Seymour was that he do what I do, which is completely ignore him.

💬 Jono Naylor: But you didn’t. You didn’t ignore him.

No, no, the only way I found out about what he said about me is that I got tweeted it. I got tweeted it. I found out later on what the member had said about me because people were hilariously laughing at it. So that is how I found out. Other than that, my advice is that what I do is ignore him.

So I will just carry on from there and say that what I wanted to outline in this contribution, what I have got left, is that I wanted to acknowledge the Ihumātao campaign against this special housing area (SHA) and support what my tungāne, my colleague Peeni Henare, of Tāmaki Makaurau, has said. What I want to go back to very, very strongly is that the Ihumātao community and the land it is trying to protect is right adjacent to some incredible, ancient stone archaeological sites—incredible. The land that was proposed for this SHA—Part 1 of this bill extends the fast tracking. So we have to remember that that was confiscated land. That was confiscated land.

The Ihumātao campaign to oppose this SHA, this special housing area, under the original legislation—I went to the Auckland Council governance meetings as well as the select committee meetings and listened to the presentation from the Ihumātao campaigners about protecting their land. You know what happened: both the council hearings and the parliamentary select committee hearings—across the House, across the parties—agreed that this was a bit of a mistake, this one. The approval for this one was a bit of a sham, and there was sympathy across all of the parties for the muck up in this particular legislation.

So I did want to bring the Ihumātao community and the people into the Committee tonight under Part 1 of this legislation, because—too late, too late—there was even sympathy and agreement across the parties and at Auckland Council. See, this is what happens when you fast track the information. If Auckland Council had known properly and had all the information in front of it, it admits that it would have made a different decision. This is what happens and can happen with this fast-tracked legislation, and this is what I wanted to put to the Committee in respect of Part 1 of this bill. So they all admitted this and had some sympathy.

I actually want to acknowledge that Nick Smith went to this community. He did. He gave them an ear, but it was too late—it was too late. He had already signed it off. That is what this fast-track process did. He is stuck with it now. He is stuck with that legacy of this wrong decision for the Ihumātao community to not have their precious ancient “Stonehenge” land protected under this fast-tracked consenting process. So that needs to be strongly acknowledged in this Committee, and I wanted to stand and do that.

I am sorry that David Seymour was offended at the start of my speech for something—all I was doing was giving an innocent synopsis of how he refers to me. Thank you.

Before I address why we need this transitional provision, can I say that I agree with other members who have said that this bill is inadequate to deal with the issues that are facing New Zealand in housing. I agree with something that Julie Anne Genter said: that these problems have become so problematic in New Zealand that they are causing economy-wide effects, not just having an effect on the housing market.

The problems are so problematic that they are causing problems beyond the housing market. It is true that some of the marginal price pressure comes from overseas buyers. It is true that that is driving demand for New Zealand currency, which is higher than it would otherwise be. It is true that it is suppressing the value of our exports and increasing our current account deficit. It is also true that it is distorting the investment signal within New Zealand so that more money is going into speculative asset classes and not enough is going to productive asset classes.

Having said that, I want to address another point that I do not think has been properly addressed. I want the Minister for Building and Housing to explain why we are having to do this piece of legislation—why—when the special housing areas did not come into creation until after the plan-making process was legislated for the Auckland Plan. Why was it not contemplated at the time of the special housing legislation that there was a need to ensure that the plans that were going to be made for the special housing areas would not be cut across by the Auckland Plan? As the explanatory note says—in the third dot point—the purpose of this bill is to “allow plan change requests made but not completed under the [Special Housing Areas] Act to continue when proposed district plans become operative:”.

So the first time that that could have been fixed was when the special housing legislation was passed, to have made that clear. The Minister shakes his head. It could have been done that way, Minister. You know that that is correct. The second way it could have been fixed is that one of the many arms of Government—one of the many billions of dollars that the Government spends every year could have been spent on making a submission to the Auckland Plan’s hearing panel that it should have made provision for the protection of planning processes that were under way in—[Interruption] They could have. Again, the Minister shakes his head. Of course it could have gone to those people who were hearing that and they could have said “Please don’t cut across the plans that are halfway through or about to be lodged, or give us a transitional period of 3 years.”, which is the transitional period that it wants under this legislation. It could have at least asked the planning authority in Auckland to put the same provision in the Auckland Plan.

That would have been far cheaper. The Government would not have to be coming to Parliament and pushing this through under urgency. The Minister shakes his head as if this could not have been done by the Auckland Plan if it had wanted to. The Auckland Plan could have said that in respect of areas that are special housing areas the planning process that is under way in respect of those under the special housing legislation shall have an effect for another 3 years. It could have done that. The Minister shakes his head and said: “Did they apply?”. Did you try? Did anyone from the Government go to the planning authority?

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: It would be unlawful.

It would have been unlawful? Rubbish. It would not have been unlawful. It would not have been unlawful for someone to turn up and say “We need the planning processes that we’ve started for the special housing areas to continue.”, and they could have said that in respect of the special housing areas this planning provision will apply—i.e., the one that we are doing.

💬 Phil Twyford: Amy Adams made a submission.

Amy Adams made a submission, but the Minister for Building and Housing did not—the Minister for Building and Housing did not. I am aghast that it did not get it right in the original Act. It did not get it right in submissions on the plan, and, therefore, the hearings commissioners do not even address it in their plan—they do not even address it in their plan. Do they address it in their plan?

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: You are just incorrect.

But they do not address it in there. I bet they did not because the Government did not ask them to. I would like the Minister to explain why it was that they did not submit on the plan and protect these planning provisions in the special housing areas. I cannot understand why that did not occur. There were two avenues—

I move, That the question be now put.

I wish to make a reasonably technical contribution to this discussion, specifically around clause 5 of Part 1, which I do not believe has been addressed yet in the discussion. There are many, many clauses that we have not yet touched upon in this debate on Part 1. Before I do, may I make a brief comment in respect of the previous exchange. I am sure you will reflect on the ability of members to cause offence or otherwise in stating their understanding—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): This is out of order. Just continue with the debate. Concentrate on the bill.

Clause 5 requires two new subsections be added to the Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Act. The first is that an Order in Council “may incorporate a map, plan, or document prepared or issued by any person or body.” That is a very significant, although ostensibly technical, amendment. Let me comment in two parts. The first is to replace what would have been a requirement for technical and specific language with any range of map, plan, or document. It is therefore possible—indeed, probably intended—that that move would make it easier for a special housing area (SHA) to cover a broader area, a broader range, a larger quantum of development. In considering that, the Committee has to take account of the rights that attach to normal consenting processes that are necessarily abrogated by this extension of the SHA process. Those are serious issues.

The next part of that subsection I think adds to that serious question, and that is because this map or plan may be issued “by any person or body.”—not a territorial authority, not a regional authority, not the Auckland Council, but perhaps by a developer, perhaps by an interest group, perhaps by the Tree Council, perhaps by Greenpeace, or perhaps by the Property Council. The point, as members can readily see, is that the uncertainty that this creates is both unnecessary and significant, given the fact that the rest of clause 5 seeks to extend and abrogate rights that are extant in the law as it stands. It is unclear—and I invite the Minister for Building and Housing to comment, because we are fortunate to have the responsible Minister in the chair—what the reasoning is behind this specific clause. Is it, perchance, the result of developer pressure for an even faster and more speedy process? Is it to abrogate the democratic processes of, perchance, the Auckland Council or other territorial authorities? Or is there a more sanguine explanation that is not apparent to members of this House? I am sure the Minister will want to comment on that.

May I reflect on the fact that there is an interesting contradistinction between this clause that the Minister has added, which allows a policy change to be done by a broad area, a large group, of housing opportunities and the contrasting approach that the same Government—I think, possibly, the same Minister—took in regard to the tree-trimming regulations in Auckland, where it removed just such an ability and required people who wanted to protect something, in this case special trees, to do it by the individual tree, which had to be specified by a long and bureaucratic process of the council. In fact, more trees probably died for the paperwork required by that highly specific amendment. And in this bill, the same Minister is doing the exact opposite. To protect something, you have to be specific to the individual tree or—thanks to Mr Goff’s pressure, perhaps, a very small group of trees—but if you want to develop something, you can do it by anybody providing a map. Imagine Captain Cook providing a map—he could do the whole country in one go. I mean, the point is, the clause—that might sound ridiculous—

💬 Jono Naylor: Nothing more ridiculous than what you’ve been saying all night.

—does not self-limit. Mr Jono would be best to constrain his interventions to something that has substance. He has made his speech. Mr Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to ask the Minister to comment on this, and I hope he will.

I want to quote the Hon Dr Nick Smith. In 2013, at the time of the first reading of the Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Bill, Dr Smith said: “The bill isn’t a silver bullet for the problem but a much needed interim measure while the Government’s longer term work programme to address housing affordability beds in.” So 3 years ago this was some kind of interim measure, but now the Government needs another 3 years while it desperately hopes that the special housing areas (SHAs) will deliver some kind of result.

Will this Minister ever do anything more than the chronic piecemeal tinkering that passes for a housing policy? Will he? Will he ever do anything more than tinker around the edges?

💬 David Seymour: Tell us, Phil. What would the member do?

David Seymour says this bill is “little more than ad hoc tinkering.” Well, I agree with David Seymour on this. That is all it is: ad hoc tinkering.

Let us consider some of the provisions in this bill. Clause 5 amends section 16 of the Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Act (HASHAA), which provides for the establishment of SHAs. New section 16(4A) allows an Order in Council to define the boundaries of an SHA—blah, blah. Clause 6 replaces section 18 of the HASHAA and allows SHAs to be disestablished, and then there are a whole series of criteria about disestablishment. Section 18(3) currently provides for the early disestablishment of an SHA.

It is a bureaucratic nightmare. It is the product of this Minister’s mind—a Minister who for 10 years has been blaming the Resource Management Act (RMA) and blaming councils for producing an uncompetitive urban land market. He has done nothing substantial about it, and this is what he is reduced to: a bureaucratic exercise in micromanaging urban land markets. It is a massive bureaucratic exercise, with a whole lot of bureaucrats writing little lines on maps and saying: “You can do this. You can’t do that. Now it’s time to do that. If you don’t do this by a certain period, we’re going to disestablish you.” It is a Kafkaesque nightmare.

Minister, why do you not just follow through on the rhetoric that you have been spouting for 10 years and actually genuinely reform the planning process? Why do you not abolish the urban growth boundary and introduce a smarter way of managing urban growth? Why do you not protect the special environmental areas, invest in rapid transit growth to support new development, and genuinely reform infrastructure financing? But you will not. The Minister will not do that. All he does is tinker.

I asked the member for Epsom, who claims to believe in competitive land markets, who wants to see the cost of urban land go down, because he understands that the high price of urban land is at the heart of the housing crisis in Auckland. Well, it is fine for the Minister to nod his head like that. He has been saying things like that for 10 years, but he has done absolutely nothing about it. He had his chance with the draft national policy statement. That was his opportunity to genuinely reform the restrictive planning and zoning system that creates an artificial scarcity of land and drives up urban land values and makes affordable housing impossible in our biggest city.

The national policy statement was his opportunity to make change. But what did he do? He produced a draft national policy statement that implemented a giant bureaucratic mechanism, telling councils that they had to project the future need for development land, and then, if they did not think there was enough, they had to increase the amount of land in supply. An incremental infusion of land into a highly speculative land market bears no resemblance to what the Minister and Bill English have been wittering on about for a decade, talking about uncompetitive land markets. What an incredible disappointment.

This Minister is in the twilight of his career. He has been mouthing off about reforming the planning system, driving down the cost of urban land, all these years—blaming the RMA and blaming councils.

I move, That the question be now put.

Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. This has been an interesting debate. If my colleague has been accused of being sanctimonious, just wait for what I have got. I wonder what the people sitting in the motels who have been sent there by Work and Income because they have got nowhere to live, watching Parliament TV—because what else would you do; I am sure they are all glued to the screen—think about this bill. I wonder how those people feel, listening to this technical and arcane debate, when what they want is somewhere to live that they can afford. I wonder what they think about the special housing areas rhetoric, which turns out to be business as usual. It turns out to be the Government saying “We’re doing something by not really doing something.”, which is quite a familiar theme to any observer of Parliament.

I wonder how it feels for the people who testified at the Cross-Party Homelessness Inquiry, when they read Part 1 of this bill and look for the innovative, committed, and justice-based provisions that are going to provide them with a home. I wonder what they think of us, as they know we are going home to comfortable homes and they are going back to the car, the garage, or the transience of 22 different homes in 3 years for a child.

We call this a debate about housing? This is not a debate about housing; this is about some weird excuse for acting on something that the Government has not got the guts to call a crisis. Why are we in urgency? Because this is a crisis—it is a crisis of conscience for this Parliament to sit here, in 2016, and make up rules about housing that will assist and facilitate developers but do nothing for the people who are shut out. They are shut out from $200,000 homes, let alone $500,000 or $600,000 homes.

Get real for a change, people. Do these people who write this legislation know what it is like to have no home? I will listen to Marama Davidson and Metiria Turei because they know—because Marama is a renter in South Auckland. Why do we not listen to the renters in South Auckland and the people who have parked up for homes? They know what the people are going through. It is too late in the history of this time to treat people as if homelessness was something that could be fixed by some bizarre tinkering with the market. It cannot be fixed by that.

The people on the streets are looking at us for guidance and leadership right now, and what are we giving them? Special housing areas over sacred sites in Tāmaki-makau-rau. When I was a child my parents bought a house through the State Advances Corporation. When I became an adult, I capitalised the family benefit so that I could have a kitchen and bathroom for my child, on a floor that was not sloping. I was lucky to be born in that dreadful old socialist welfare terrible era when the State thought that people could have a house, that it would help them do it, and that when they had it, we could get on with our lives as families and build a society and a community that worked. This Government has walked away from that.

I am not asking for a romantic, latte-free 1950s reality; I am just asking for the State to take responsibility for a crisis. I am just asking that we actually pass legislation here that will facilitate for those who really need it, not for those people who like to play the market and who want to invest in a couple of homes. If this bill did what it said it does, then Metiria would not need a Supplementary Order Paper and no one would be calling Marama Davidson sanctimonious because she stands up every day in this House for her own people, who are constantly marginalised by privilege.

But that is not what is happening in this bill. We are in urgency because this issue is so simple that we do not want the public to talk about it. If this Parliament had a solution, why would it go into urgency and prevent people from coming and discussing that solution? It is only because this is not a solution that we are having this conversation and blocking out the public. It is a disgrace.

Why are we here? Why are we here, and what is this bill that we are debating? The bill that we are debating extends the time frame for the special housing areas. It extends the time frame in which they can be established until 16 September 2019, and it delays the repeal of the whole Act until 16 September 2021. So why are we here doing this under urgency? Why is this so urgent that the entirety of Parliament has to grind to a halt to push this through under urgency? Was this unexpected? Was the Minister of Housing who drafted the legislation in the first place—who put the dates in the original legislation in the first place—unaware when he wrote that that those were actually going to be the dates at which the law expired and the dates at which further special housing areas were not going to be able to be established? If so, why did it take until this week for him to bring something to the House to do something about that?

A Minister who was vaguely competent in administering the legislation that they themselves had written would have been able to anticipate that this was going to be an issue, and would have been able to address that through the regular legislative process. So why are we here? Why are we here under urgency—through the night, tomorrow, however long it takes—in order to change these dates for the special housing areas, when the Government could have done that months ago but chose not to? The Government could have done that at any point since the passage of the previous legislation, had it wanted to. It could have changed the dates if it had wanted to, and it chose not to, so why are we here? Why are we debating this under urgency when the Government could have dealt with these issues had it chosen to do so? It is because of the utter, utter incompetent administration of all of the issues around housing.

I want to turn my attention to the provision of affordable housing, in particular, because the departmental disclosure statement makes the observation that of the special housing areas already established, there are around 75 percent of them that have up to 10 percent affordable housing.

Debate interrupted.

Sitting suspended from 10 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Wednesday)