Housing Legislation Amendment Bill

The question that I was asking the Minister in the chair, Nick Smith, before we broke last night was: why are we here when the Government has known about this issue and could have resolved it long before now? Phil Goff, the aspiring mayoral candidate in Auckland, pointed this out to the Government back in May. It has taken, now, until September for it to bring something to the House to deal with the issue, and it is now trying to rush it through all stages under urgency.

But the question that I have for the Minister in the chair, Paul Goldsmith, relates to page 2 of the regulatory impact statement around the expansion of special housing areas (SHAs). It notes that the 213 SHAs in existence now are expected to yield over 70,000 homes. Three-quarters of those will require around 10 percent of the homes within that development to be affordable. Let us do some crude maths on those numbers. Three-quarters of the 70,000 homes is 52,500. Ten percent of that—which is the component of those 70,000 homes that will actually end up being affordable—is just over 5,000. So, basically, what the Government is saying is that 5,000 affordable houses is enough—5,000 affordable houses is enough.

Let us look at the population growth in Auckland. The population growth in Auckland has been well over 100,000 since the last census—probably more than that. The age demographics in Auckland in the most recent census that I was able to get my fingers on, right before this debate started, are that there were, in 2006, 110,000 Aucklanders between the ages of 20 and 35. That is the aspiring first-home buyer age bracket—110,000. By the 2013 census, it will be significantly more. I could not get those statistics right before I stood up to speak. Basically, what the Government is saying is that 5,000 new homes are enough for the over 100,000 young aspiring first-home buyers to get their first step on the property ladder. It is simply not right. It is simply a fiction.

So the question I have for the Government is: why is this it? Why is it coming to the House and wanting to extend SHAs? The Labour Party is voting in favour of this part of the bill, because we support continuity here. We want to make sure that we do not end up with developments being stalled or anything like that. But where is the rest of the plan? Where is the plan that is actually going to result in enough affordable housing for all of the aspiring first-home buyers in Auckland who want to buy them, because 5,000 new affordable homes—which is basically what this bill amounts to—is not going to cut it. It is not going to be enough. So I would like to hear from the Minister why the Government thinks that is sufficient and what other work it is doing to meet the demographic projections in Auckland, which will result in increasing numbers of first-home buyers being shut out of the housing market. I would also like the Minister to answer my first question, which is: why now?

I move, That the question be now put.

I will hear one more. I think we are getting near the end.

This is the first call I have taken on Part 1 of this bill, and I thought that it was important to take a call because I have been listening to the spin that the Government has been trying to put on this bill over the last 24 hours. The spin it is putting on is that Labour is opposed to building houses. Well, I want the public out there to know that we are in favour of and would vote for Part 1, because even though it is inadequate in many ways, we are the party that wants to build houses.

It was Labour that put in place KiwiBuild—and what did the Government do? It laughed and scoffed at it and said we do not need a major building programme in New Zealand for affordable housing. Interestingly, in 3 years, with the price of houses going up and housing accords being put in place, we now know that the house prices in Auckland—and also around New Zealand—have been going up and up, beyond the ability for people to be able to pay. We know that we need to take measures, and one of them is to build houses. As inadequate as this Part 1 is, we would support it.

But I have to say that I am very disappointed in the whole approach that is being taken here in Part 1. I go, also, as my colleague Chris Hipkins did, to the regulatory impact statement. The reason why we are doing this under urgency, particularly Part 1, is that it addresses the fact that developers—developers—have had insufficient time to lodge relevant consents to councils. So the reason why Part 1 is being rushed through is that they have had insufficient time.

When were these brought into being? Well, a very significant date, actually: 13 September 2013—13 September; somebody’s birthday is on that date. Three years ago the housing accords were brought in under legislation—3 years ago—and developers have had insufficient time to lodge? What they have lodged is land that they want to land bank. They want to ensure that they can ratchet up the price of that land. So why, knowing that this was brought in 3 years ago, are we now trying to extend it—in urgency—to give the developers more time?

I want to ask the Minister in the chair, Paul Goldsmith: what guarantee has the Government got that developers who have not had sufficient time will now have sufficient time? How many developers have told the Government they intend to lodge under the special housing accord? I want to know the number, because for the Government to have this in a regulatory impact statement it must have done some research. It must have done some consulting; it must have done some work. What ministerial work was undertaken to find out that the developers had insufficient time? Minister, if you have not got that information from your officials now—and I know you are only the Minister in the chair at the moment—I suggest you turn to your officials and ask what evidence they have got that developers had insufficient time. What was delaying them? Why were they delayed in putting it in? Did they not think it important enough? Did they think that if they waited long enough, the silly Government would expand the time that they could do this for another 3 years? So, Minister, I would like you to get on your hind legs and tell us what evidence you have got for what is in this regulatory impact statement, because this is the official regulatory impact statement on this bill, so I would like to know the answer to that.

I also want to know why the Government would not accept Supplementary Order Paper 212, put forward by my colleague Phil Twyford, which related to ensuring that any building in special housing areas has affordable housing. Why would you not include a requirement to have affordable housing? All this will do is extend the time for special housing areas and enable people—developers who have not had enough time—to be able to get their plans ready to build massive big houses, over 2,000 square metres, with en suites and four bedrooms, which are beyond the price range of New Zealanders. The average New Zealander, working hard, cannot afford to pay the cost of houses, and the average in Auckland is now at a million dollars. Suddenly, all those homeowners, who are the lucky ones who own, are millionaires, and there are many looking through the window, saying: “Why can’t we afford a house?”. Why does the Government not include affordable housing in Part 1?

I move, That the question be now put.

Yes, I have looked at the list—we have now had 30 calls on this part, we have been going for a significant period of time, and it has been a while since I have heard anything new. Therefore, I think members are in a position to make a decision as a Committee whether or not they are ready to have the vote on Part 1.