Point England Development Enabling Bill

I move, That the Point England Development Enabling Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Local Government and Environment Committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate time, I intend to move that the bill be reported back to the House by 28 April 2017. This bill forms part of the Government’s wide-ranging and pragmatic programme to address the challenges of housing in Auckland. At the core of Auckland’s housing issues is the supply of land, where we have seen section prices increase more than fourfold over the course of the last 25 years. The Government has a programme, with the special housing areas, special legislation around the new Auckland Unitary Plan, and the programme in respect of the large Resource Legislation Amendment Bill that is before the select committee.

Whether it be the major reforms that are going on in the area of social housing and the Government housing agency, Housing New Zealand, building the largest number of new homes ever, whether it be the HomeStart programme, which is providing the most generous support that has ever been provided by a Government for first-home buyers, or whether it be the changes that our Government has made around the regulation of building, all of those parts of the programme provide the long-term solution.

But the Government is also very pragmatic in saying that, where it owns land in Auckland, it needs to free up sites that are not being well utilised and enable them to be able to be utilised for housing. That is what this bill is all about. It is part of the Crown land programme. It is the ninth site that is now subject to housing development. That programme will provide for 1,500 homes, and each week I am announcing additional blocks of land that can be better utilised for housing purposes.

This particular block of land, and the purpose of this bill, is to enable housing development on 11.7 hectares of land on the Point England Recreation Reserve in Tāmaki, in east Auckland. I emphasise that this is only 12 kilometres from the CBD of the city. It is part of the city where housing need is at its most acute. I would note that 18 hectares of the Point England Reserve has been used for the last 30 years for grazing cows. I know—including yourself, Mr Assistant Speaker—that grazing land is an important economic activity for New Zealand, but I would hope that there was a consensus in this Parliament that using land that is so central to the city of Auckland, when we have got high housing need, for grazing cows is totally inefficient, inappropriate land use; that is what this bill will enable us to be able to develop for housing.

The bill is very similar to a bill this Parliament has already passed this year, the Riccarton Racecourse legislation, where we also had a reserve that was set aside over 140 years ago—for racing horses—and land that was poorly utilised. That land now has construction work begun on building 600 homes for the city of Christchurch. The Point England Development Enabling Bill, as with the Riccarton bill, recognises that although it may be extremely desirable to have a further 300 houses within 20 minutes of the CBD, the Reserves Act and the current zoning at the site provides a barrier to that being able to occur—thus the need for this bill.

The development land is Crown-owned but vested in Auckland Council as a recreational reserve under the Reserves Act 1977. The land’s reserve status and zoning means it is restricted to just that use. The bill enables housing to be built on the development land by creating a new parcel of land from within the reserve with separate title, revoking that parcel’s reserve status, setting it aside for State housing purposes, and applying a Mixed Housing Urban zoning that will allow it to be developed for residential homes. The balance of the reserve, 33.3 hectares, will remain recreation reserve land, as will the council-owned beach reserve.

The Point England Development Enabling Bill enables housing to be built on that land by subdividing the 11.7 hectares for housing from the balance of the reserve, the creation of a separate title, revocation of the reserve status on that parcel of land, and requiring the zoning of the land to be changed from Public Open Space to Mixed Housing Urban. The development land will be connected by road to Point England Road and Elstree Avenue, will not encroach on the elevated headland or the eastern sports fields adjacent to the council-owned beach reserve, and will be set back from Ōmaru Creek.

I want to acknowledge Ngāti Paoa’s significant role in this development. They will have the first opportunity to develop the land for housing. The iwi became aware of the Tāmaki Redevelopment Company’s plans at Point England in 2015 and brought a housing development proposal to the Government. Ngāti Paoa understands Point England as part of the larger area that was, in the past, well settled. There were houses and gardens, significantly supporting a Ngāti Paoa population all the way along the Tāmaki River towards the great pā at Mokoia.

Ngāti Paoa, despite promises by the Crown at the time—large tracts of Auckland were being alienated—had not retained land in these areas that were once so important to them. This is why this development opportunity also supports the conclusion of the Ngāti Paoa Treaty settlement negotiations, something my colleague the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Treaty Negotiations, Chris Finlayson, is working towards.

The iwi in Auckland, not all of whom have settled their claims, have been willing partners with the Government in trying to resolve the housing challenges in the city of Auckland. They understand very well the importance of housing to their people and the communities they are part of. As part of this development, we expect a minimum of 20 percent of the new homes to be social houses and a further 20 percent to be within that HomeStart price cap of under $650,000, but the details of that housing development are yet to be negotiated. Ngāti Paoa will pay fair market value for the land and assume the risks of the development. A further 2 hectares is being provided at Point England for the development of a marae as part of the cultural redress of that Treaty settlement.

Point England is also within the Tāmaki regeneration area, and that huge development, the largest redevelopment of housing anywhere in New Zealand, has the added challenge of being able to provide homes for people while the houses are demolished and redeveloped. The big advantage of this Point England development with Ngāti Paoa is that we are going to be able to have homes for those people to be able to stay in their home community while, at the same time, accelerating that huge redevelopment from 2,800 homes to 7,500 homes. This land is also subject to a right of first refusal under the Ngā Mana Whenua o Tāmaki Makaurau settlement legislation, and the bill will not interfere with that.

I would encourage members of the House to support this bill. It is pragmatic. It is about addressing the supply of land that is so fundamental to the housing challenge in Auckland. It really does come down to a simple question of whether this Parliament believes it is sensible that Crown land should have cows grazing on it, when we have such a high need for housing, and it would be the Government’s view that by working with iwi we can make better use of this land as well as reinvest that money to provide for a wonderful recreational facility and build a new community. I note that both the Government and Ngāti Paoa’s ambition is not just building houses but building a wonderful new community here at Point England.

Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. Tuatahi, e mihi atu ana au ki a koe e te tuakana, e Hau, kua tae mai ki roto i tō tātou Whare, hei whakarongo atu ki te pānuitanga tuatahi o tēnei pire. He pire e tautoko kaha nei e Ngāti Paoa, e Ōrahi, o tāua rahi o te kāinga rā o Tāmaki Makaurau, kāti, ngā mihi nui ki a koe me tō whānau, ā, ki a koe hoki e Te Minita o mua rā, e kara e Rick. E mihi atu ana au ki a koe, pai te kite atu i a koe, e tirotiro mai nei ki ngā mahi e tutuki nei tātou i te rā nei.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. Firstly, I acknowledge you, elder sibling Hau, who has arrived here in our House to listen to the first reading of this bill. It is one that is strongly supported by Ngāti Paoa and Ōrahi at that place of yours and mine, Auckland, and, suffice to say, huge salutations to you and your family, and to you as well, former Minister, colleague friend Rick. I salute you; how wonderful it is to see you looking down upon us here as we complete what has to be done before us on this day.]

Thank you very much for this opportunity to rise and contribute on the Point England Development Enabling Bill. It is not a very inspiring title. Although I take many of the points from the Minister, I would like to pick up on probably the last points he made about Ngāti Paoa’s involvement in this particular land development and how it is actually about creating a community. Those are the kinds of inspirational words our people deserve to hear in Tāmaki-makau-rau when we consider housing opportunities, not just for Ngāti Paoa but for houses that will alleviate the pressures and the stress placed upon Tāmaki-makau-rau at this point in time due to a housing crisis.

Let us be very clear about that: it has been a housing crisis. This has been a long, drawn-out debate about whether or not it is a crisis. Well, that might be the case with the Government at this point in time, but we have been very clear: it has been a housing crisis for a number of years now. And I want to commend my colleague Mr Twyford, who cannot be here to contribute to this first reading. But I do want to commend him for the work he has done in this space to make the issue more apparent to the Government, which seems to have been blind to it for so long.

This particular bill offers an opportunity not just for Tāmaki-makau-rau but, in particular, for Ngāti Paoa, and for that reason I am extremely excited. I am extremely excited because, as we have seen, these kinds of partnerships evolve over a number of years. The Minister mentioned the Tāmaki redevelopment opportunity that was had right next door to Point England. There are other examples of particular partnerships with Ngāti Whātua. There is another one down here with Te Ātiawa. They are good relationships to develop—these types of opportunities—not only for the tribe but for New Zealand. However, I think this one is another step in that evolution. I think this particular partnership provides a fantastic opportunity where Māori are given this opportunity to really drive it, to make sure that they work with their relationships, whoever is involved or concerned with the Point England development—that they act in a very Māori way. Ngāti Paoa have been very clear about this from the outset.

Many in this House have got up and stood to sing a song—whoever has spoken on a marae—and it is “Te Aroha”. Everyone knows the words. Some sing it really well; most sing it very poorly. But Ngāti Paoa have made it clear that, in their desire to develop this particular opportunity, they want to be working on the premise of aroha, pono, and tika—aroha, pono, and tika—to make sure that the foundations for this opportunity are actually a springboard not just for Ngāti Paoa but for all of the people in Tāmaki-makau-rau. So it is for these reasons that I stand to support this bill through to the next stages. We look forward to welcoming submissions and to welcoming commentary and input from the communities of Tāmaki-makau-rau and from those involved in housing development in the past and who wish to do so in the future.

This one is unique in some respects. It is unique in so far as it is a property development, for all intents and purposes. The public will see this as an opportunity to have more homes in Tāmaki-makau-rau. But I also note that, in this bill, there is a provision for 2 hectares to be put aside for a marae—for a marae. You ask any Māori—perhaps maybe not the new Deputy Prime Minister, Paula Bennett, who has already said she did not grow up on a marae, but if you ask most Māoris, you will know that a marae is at the heart of their community. A marae is at the heart of their community. So this bill provides for 2 hectares to provide Ngāti Paoa that opportunity to build a marae. And when you get the marae built on aroha, tika, and pono, and the kinds of values that we want to see in our community, you will find that the rest of the community will follow suit. You will find that the community will grow, and it will grow with a solid foundation. So I am excited by that particular opportunity—the 2 hectares being afforded to Ngāti Paoa to stamp their mark on what would otherwise seem like any other property development in Tāmaki-makau-rau. You can drive past property developments every day in Tāmaki-makau-rau, in my electorate, and they are just more houses that are going up. This particular opportunity at Te Tauoma is a fantastic one—one that will allow Ngāti Paoa, in partnership with the council and, of course, with central government, to provide for housing not just for their people but also for the people of Tāmaki-makau-rau.

The Minister spoke about the fact that although the finer details need to be discussed and debated, hopefully with not too much compromise on the part of Ngāti Paoa—although those details need to be fleshed out, I am encouraged by the kinds of numbers that are being afforded to affordable housing, to social housing. We hear of all these property developments, thousands of homes being built, but only 10 percent being used for social housing. Well, for the pressures that I have seen placed upon the people of Tāmaki-makau-rau, Māori and Pākehā alike, who come into my office, 10 percent is just not enough. So as a kaitiaki of the Tāmaki-makau-rau isthmus and Ngāti Paoa, they are making that commitment to the people of Tāmaki-makau-rau, and that is something to be celebrated. That is exciting. So I am encouraged by that. There are, of course, many challenges. Let us not kid ourselves in thinking that this is just straightforward and awesome. Ngāti Paoa are going to get the opportunity—the Minister stated very clearly that Ngāti Paoa will get the opportunity—however, it will be at their own risk.

I want to say to Ngāti Paoa, to my relations seated in the gallery here today: kia kaha, kia tūpato, āta haere. Kia kaha—be strong. Kia tūpato—be careful. Āta haere—move forward progressively. Move forward to make sure that you are treading carefully as you progress, so that you do not fall into pits and get snagged by fish hooks and everything else that comes with property development, because, as most members in this House will know, property development is a very tricky game to get involved in. But this particular bill provides an opportunity and a start and the platform for Ngāti Paoa, for which we are grateful, and I am sure the people of Ngāti Paoa are, too.

I mentioned at the beginning Ngāti Paoa’s commitment to alleviating the housing crisis in Tāmaki-makau-rau. Housing is one of those key pillars in the conversation around poverty. It is not a coincidence that Sir Mason Durie uses what they call a whare tapa whā model. He could have used any kind of square shape, or anything with four sides, but he specifically chose a whare, he whare tapa whā—not just a tapa whā, a square; he said a “whare tapa whā”. So to have these kinds of opportunities to build houses, to make sure that the people of Ngāti Paoa, the people of Tāmaki-makau-rau, Māori and non-Māori alike, get the opportunity to have that foundation, to have the pillar and security of a home, to make sure that issues such as poverty, which we can see right next door to Point England, in Glen Innes—we do not want to see that in this particular development.

Just in conclusion, in some of the notes here, there is a perfect, I think, description provided by Ngāti Paoa in their grasp of this particular opportunity, and it says: “Paoa taringa rahirahi. Paoa pukunui.” I think that is a fantastic way to conclude my contribution: to say paoa taringa rahirahi—be aware. And I know you are, and I know that the impacts upon your people and, indeed, your whenua will be at the forefront of the development moving forward. And paoa pukunui—this will provide the opportunity not just for Ngāti Paoa but for all of the people of Tāmaki-makau-rau. We support this bill. Kia ora tātou.

It is an honour to rise in support of the Point England Development Enabling Bill in this, its first reading. Just with regard to the member opposite who has just resumed his seat, Mr Henare, thank you very much for that contribution. I actually agree with most of what Mr Henare said, apart from his criticism—his cheeky criticism—of the title, Point England Development Enabling Bill. This is an enabling bill, this is a pragmatic bill, and therefore it deserves a pragmatic title. I think it is a tribute that this is a Government that is committed to getting more families into warm and affordable homes, and that commitment involves partnerships with iwi to do so.

If we look at the Point England reserve in the traditional sense, as a reserve, it is not complying with its traditional values as to why reserves have been set aside. If you look at that reserve, with cows grazing on it, 20 minutes from the CBD, it no longer fits those values. So this, as I said, is a pragmatic bill where the Minister has said: “Let’s look at this. Let’s do something about it, and enable a housing development on 11.69 hectares of that land to be worked through, to provide warm and dry housing for families.”

And with that partnership with Ngāti Paoa, it is wonderful that the proceeds of that market-value sale will go back into that community specifically, to start developing amenities, and as Mr Henare said, with 2 hectares of it set aside for a marae. That marae will be the heart of a community, to bring people together, to create an environment that is supportive around the need for providing affordable housing and a dry, warm environment for those people.

I am not going to dwell on this first reading any longer. As I said before, it is a pragmatic bill. It is special legislation to make sure that we get this development through. It is one of nine Crown land housing site developments and the sixth in Auckland. It is designed to address the need of increasing housing supply where demand exceeds supply, and we are committed, as I said before, to getting families into dry, warm, affordable homes. With that, I commend this bill.

Labour will be supporting this bill because we will support any piece of legislation that is going to be about building more affordable homes in Auckland. What we on this side of the House recognise is that there is a housing crisis and that first-home buyers are locked out of the market, and it does not make sense to use prime land for grazing cows when it could be used for affordable housing. The development will also be a great opportunity for Ngāti Paoa as a developer of the houses, so it is good to see their historical wrongs addressed through the right to build houses on this land and the provision of 2 hectares for the development of a marae.

Ultimately, this is only 300 homes. Auckland is building 8,000 homes per year fewer than it needs. The Government needs to step up and build more affordable houses. In fact, the new Prime Minister, Bill English, needs to show how he is going to fix the problems Key papered over—problems like the housing crisis, which John Key refuses to acknowledge is real when the rest of New Zealand knows how real it is, particularly in their own lives or in the lives of families who are struggling not only to buy homes but to get affordable rentals, or to find homes where their children can be healthy, because of the state of some of the homes that have not been repaired by that Government.

We recognise that, with this development, it will mean a loss of green space for the community, and the Government will need to work closely with the council to make sure that there are adequate facilities for recreation in the area. What we also recognise is that this is actually the ninth project in the Government’s underwhelming surplus Crown land scheme. Let us just point out a few of the other underwhelming ones.

We have got Nick Smith, who promised 500 hectares of housing, with the first houses being built by the end of 2016. Here we are at the end of 2016, still only just confirming the sites. We are unlikely to have even a fraction of 500 hectares developed, and they have not even started building the houses. The second example of the underwhelming nature of that Government when it comes to housing is that the early sites it identified for the Crown land scheme included ridiculous places it could not build on, including cemeteries, substations, and the Governor-General’s house, of all places. The third example of underwhelming housing schemes that I would like to use is the programme that was set back months by the Government’s refusal to recognise Ngāti Whātua’s right of first refusal, resulting in a legal challenge.

💬 Peeni Henare: High Court.

High Court, as my colleague Peeni Henare has said. So it has been underwhelming.

At the moment, whatever we can support, no matter how underwhelming it is, we must support, because we do have such a huge housing crisis. It has spiralled out of control under that National Government. We have got first-home buyers, as I said, locked out of the market, and 41,000 people are homeless. That number has increased significantly under the National Government, and those members should be ashamed of themselves for it. New Zealand’s rate of homeownership is the lowest it has been since 1951. In fact, for the Pacific community, which has the lowest homeownership rate now, it is something like 18 percent. The Auckland house price has more than doubled since National took office, to over $1 million, and the crisis is now spreading around the country. As people move out of Auckland because they cannot afford to live there, the house prices in other parts of the country are starting to skyrocket as well.

So this is not just an Auckland issue. The housing crisis is a national issue. In fact, it is a National Government issue, if it would only recognise that. One in seven Auckland houses are now sold to major property speculators; 78 percent of renters cannot afford a deposit on the average New Zealand home—this is over a million people locked out of homeownership; 35 percent of offshore speculators pay no tax on their rental properties, because of tax write-offs; and English and Bennett are focusing on selling off State houses instead of building new ones, despite the Horowhenua and Invercargill sales falling through.

I saw a really good example of what is happening with Housing New Zealand and State housing when I was in New Plymouth recently. There was a development that was meant to take place—Jonathan Young is in the House. He has done nothing to address this issue. There was a development that was supposed to take place. It was promised back in 2008 that those houses would be bowled down and that new houses would be built on that land, and that there would be a higher rate of provision in terms of Housing New Zealand houses. Instead, it is now 2016, 8 years later, under that National Government, and nothing has been done—except that some of those houses have been knocked down. Some of them have been boarded up, but nothing new has been built there, and there is less of a provision of State housing than there was when that Government started.

When I put through an Official Information Act request to try to find out why that was the case, I got the response back saying that there was no demand for Housing New Zealand houses. There is demand for Housing New Zealand houses. You only need to speak to the emergency shelter in New Plymouth, member for New Plymouth, Jonathan Young, and you find out that it has had a 33 percent increase in the number of people having to access emergency shelter because they are not able to access Housing New Zealand housing or any other housing.

The only reason that it looks like there is less of a demand on Housing New Zealand is that the Government has made it harder to get on the Housing New Zealand register. It uses that as a reason to not develop the houses. It is disgusting to think that in the context of this national housing crisis, here we have these empty, boarded-up homes, as well as houses that have been knocked down—so a whole lot of land free where houses could be built by the Government to house these people who need housing—and yet nothing has been done. The member for New Plymouth should be ashamed of himself for not advocating for his constituents like he should have.

Pointing out all of those things, I also need to just point out the fact that Labour does have a plan. This housing crisis is real. We recognise that. We have got a plan to address it. Labour has committed. We committed a few years ago. We continue to maintain this commitment to ensuring that every New Zealander has a warm, dry, affordable home. We take that so seriously that a bill was put in under our leader, Andrew Little’s, name. We have talked about the fact that we will be building more affordable homes—100,000 over 10 years. The Government thinks that that is too aspirational, but we do not think it is too aspirational. We think it is achievable, actually, because we are the party of aspiration. We have talked about fixing Auckland’s planning rules—

💬 Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: The party of desperation.

—cracking down on speculators, and giving more support to those in need. That is real aspiration. That is real aspiration, and that is what New Zealand wants to see: a political party that will actually address the serious issues and challenges that we face as a country. I see Jonathan Coleman yelling at me from across the room. There is a reason he was not selected by his colleagues to be leader of the National Party. There is a reason, so maybe, just for the next couple of days, he should potentially just sit there quietly for a little while and reflect on whether or not he is actually as popular as he thinks he is. Thank you very much.

I stand to take a short call on the Point England Development Enabling Bill. I just want to say that in order to have an aspirational party you need aspirational people, and I do not see any across the way. I see nobody, because the aspiration is all over this side—it is all over this side.

This is a very good bill. I am really pleased that I am standing here during the first reading and speaking on the first reading of this bill. It is part and parcel of this Government’s housing plan. Auckland has a big housing issue, and we are adding another 300 more houses in partnership with Ngāti Paoa, as part and parcel of the Ngāti Paoa Treaty settlement claim. Of these 300 homes, 20 percent are going to be social housing, and another 20 percent are going to be affordable homes. That is on 11.7 hectares; 33.31 hectares of the remaining land will remain as a reserve. It will remain as a reserve, a green space. The member opposite said that there would be no green space; well, that is a load of rubbish, because there will be. Two hectares, yes, will be for a beautiful marae built by Ngāti Paoa—built for them, by them. I think that that is an amazing feat for Ngāti Paoa.

As I said, my speech is only going to be very short, because I think that everything that is going to be said on this side of the House is going to be a tribute—a tribute—to the people of Ngāti Paoa and to the Minister for Building and Housing, who has shepherded this bill and many of the other housing projects through this Government. Therefore, without any further ado, I commend it to the House. Thank you.

The Green Party is very pleased to support this bill to the Local Government and Environment Committee. There is a great deal about it that we think is wise, most particularly the partnership relationship with Ngāti Paoa and their involvement in housing development as an iwi. We think this is the right kind of approach, or at least the right kind of relationship to be taking with iwi around the country, as in Auckland, where iwi are directly involved in housing.

There are some issues that we do have with the bill that I just need to address as part of the Greens’ contribution. I am expecting that a number of those concerns will be dealt with effectively at select committee, and we are looking forward to engaging in the select committee process over those concerns. One of the major concerns we have is that the special housing areas policy has been a dismal failure. The whole policy, actually, is crashing and burning. It has not delivered anything like the housing that was promised. When Nick Smith talked today about “over 7,500”—that is a promise of some housing, sometime in the future, 10 to 15 years away. The Government has delivered very few actual homes under the special housing areas policy. It keeps making promises based on projections of homes. I do not know how it is making those projections, but the fact is that New Zealanders and Aucklanders are certainly seeing very little come out of it.

Part of the concern that we have about this bill is its relationship to special housing areas, particularly the removal of the Resource Management Act (RMA) from involvement in the decisions, and therefore, actually, the removal of the rest of the community from the decisions that might affect them with this development. It is not particular to the iwi partnership; it is actually just part of our concern that the special housing areas are being used by Government as a means to remove the RMA from planning. The results of that mean that we have often very poor quality housing. We certainly do not have anything like the amount of housing that we need to see, and there is no guarantee in that process for the housing to be affordable.

The legislation itself is silent on the provisions for affordability, and there is no reason that it has to be silent. The special housing areas policy has been silent on that matter, as well. There is no reason that this bill has to continue to propagate this idea that the RMA has no place in planning for housing. It does have a place. The communities that live around that area do have a right to be involved, and there can be some more engagement under the RMA in this legislation. On top of that, it is critical that we continue to have real engagement with communities about the housing that they will be putting up with—that they will be living with. They will be living in the communities that are being formed.

There is also some real concern, as I said, about the affordable housing provisions. In the Riccarton legislation, as I understand it, there was provision there for a financial payment if the numbers of affordable houses were not built; so there was a performance standard required in the Riccarton legislation, and there is no reason why there should not be one in this legislation as well. It is not a sufficient trade-off to have reduced regulatory management of housing developments for no guarantee of social housing. This is the argument, right? It is that we need more housing and we need more affordable housing. Therefore, there needs to be some give and take around the planning rules, and therefore we will remove the RMA from its involvement in these planning processes around this housing development, because there will be affordable and social housing.

But if there is no guarantee of it, then the public is just being asked to give up its right to have a say and to give up the resource management requirements around consultation, public engagement, and environmental assessment for nothing—essentially, for developers to be able to get very cheap and very fast access to public land for the purposes of building homes that they can then sell for a significant profit. There has to be something in the bill that will provide some certainty that there will be affordable housing and that, if there is not, there will be some kind of penalty for that. The public is entitled to some return for what it is being asked to give up.

Finally, we understand that there have been a lot of concerns, as I understand it, from the iwi involved in Ngāti Paoa, and also from others, around the pollution of the river, and that there has been a lot of effort put in to doing clean-up work. There is also a significant nesting area for dotterels and oystercatchers in this area as well. I have spoken to Ngāti Paoa about this—just about our concern to make sure there is an adequate environmental assessment of the effects of this development or any runoff or anything, both on the river and also on these nesting sites. As I understand it, they are quite happy for that kind of assessment to happen, and it should. It is a little bit unclear at the moment as to who should be responsible for that assessment, and the bill provides no clarity around who is responsible for that. We will be wanting to have that conversation in the select committee, with those who are developing, with Ngāti Paoa, with the council, and with Government. We have to make sure that there are some bottom-line protections for the natural environment there. The overall proposal is very good, but there are still some concerns about environmental protection and environmental restoration, and as I understand it, Ngāti Paoa too is concerned about that and wants to make sure that the development is really good in that area.

I will not keep the House any longer. I think that the proposal for the relationship with Ngāti Paoa is, by and large, very good. The details, as we know—especially when Nick Smith is responsible for legislation that involves Māori—require some care—

💬 Marama Davidson: Monitoring.

—monitoring, yes. Ha, ha! Some monitoring of the detail is required, because there is a history there. We will be doing that as part of our management of this bill as it goes through select committee and the rest of the House. We will be looking for some changes, to make sure the bill goes well. All our best to Ngāti Paoa, who, I understand, are here to hear the debate on the bill. I am looking forward to talking with you more. Kia ora.

New Zealand First will also support the bill—as far as the select committee, at least. I would like to say at the beginning that it is always very difficult to agree to the loss of reserve land, because the whole point of land being reserved is to stop the sort of ad hoc reversal of that status that we are actually seeing in this case. It is very easy to take reserves away; it is almost impossible to get them back.

New Zealand First is very concerned about the loss of such a large part of this reserve. Eighteen hectares is about one-third of the total—if you take into account the 45 hectares altogether, plus another 3 hectares of adjacent council land, it is about one-third. It is a big chunk of a very big reserve. Even though that 18 hectares is already fenced off for grazing and is not being used for recreation, that does not mean that it would not be needed in the future, and that it should not be kept as a reserve for that purpose for the longer-term future. That indeed is the very reason reserves exist.

Reserves of that particular size are very hard to come by, so its loss must be very seriously considered, so New Zealand First will support this proposal only to the select committee stage at this point in time. We want to hear from people who are affected or who have whatever it is to say on this particular proposal. We want to hear their submissions and we then want to decide, rather than trying to make a final decision right now.

New Zealand First is very concerned about the loss of such an important area of reserve land, but we are also extremely concerned about the chronic need for more housing land in Auckland, and especially for the provision of smaller sections for modest, lower-cost homes—and, even more especially, provision for social housing and State housing. This land clearly is suitable for that. It is close to public transport, and it is close to central Auckland, so we would have no difficulties in that respect.

In fact, New Zealand First policy is for direct Government intervention in the housing market, both to provide State housing, and to provide sections and homes at the lower end of the scale. We feel that commercial developers provide well only at the high end of the scale and not the lower end, so there tends to be a big gap not met by the market. That leaves far too many Kiwis without homes that they can buy or rent for reasonable rentals. Of course, we say that this is all greatly exacerbated by the scale of immigration that has been allowed by this Government over several years—massive immigration, which can only have a very adverse effect on an already troubled housing market. That scale of immigration is quite clearly and definitely opposed by New Zealand First, but that is not the subject of this bill.

This bill is otherwise consistent with our policy to use suitable Crown land or local authority land for housing. We would set up a commercial entity, which we would call Kiwi Housing, to acquire land and, where appropriate, to use existing housing land to create a land bank where demand clearly exceeds supply for sustainable residential development. We would want that entity to control all aspects of that development, which would be aimed at delivering smaller, high-quality new homes with appropriate land densities to provide good social and transport outcomes, and to optimise the use of prefabricated homes to minimise costs. So we would get smaller, cheaper, good-quality homes. In addition to that, we would sell residential sections on the basis of a long-term agreement for sale and purchase, up to 25 years to first-home buyers, with a low interest rate on it, and other terms and conditions that would make it easy for people to buy their first home.

This particular bill is similar to the Riccarton Racecourse bill, which the Minister for Building and Housing mentioned. It was passed recently with New Zealand First’s support, because there the reserve for racing and other purposes was also preserved. That proposal did have excellent public consultation, which showed significant public support. New Zealand First’s continued support would depend on excellent public consultation—in this case, demonstrating significant public support.

In the case of the Point England land, there is good reason to believe that there may be such support, that the adjacent recreation reserves would not be affected, that there are not unsettled Treaty settlement barriers, and that there are no barriers to the offer-back requirements, which would remain in place. New Zealand First looks forward to the public consultation, just to see what else might come out of the woodwork, what other problems there might be, and whatever people might think about the proposal in any respect. We need to be assured that there are no significant unknown barriers to the proposal, and we would need to be satisfied that low-cost or social housing will be provided as an essential and definite and achievable result of this proposal. We do presume, at this stage, that that will be the case.

We do note, however, that the proposal will allow for only about 300 homes, when Auckland needs 140,000 homes within the next 10 years. That is a huge number to provide for. We know that this Government has failed dismally to come up with anything like a comprehensive plan to address the scale of that need. This particular proposal is only a drop in the bucket compared with the magnitude of the demand caused by National’s policies in action and its open-door immigration policies. This proposal is a drop in the bucket, but nevertheless, in itself, is worth supporting. So, for that reason, New Zealand First will support the bill as far as the select committee. We will then hear what people have to say and make a final decision.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this bill, the Point England Development Enabling Bill, in its first reading. First of all, I would like to congratulate the Hon Dr Nick Smith on bringing this bill to the House. This is an example where we can see the Crown and marae working together for the betterment of the people of New Zealand.

I am a bit lost with the contribution from the previous speaker. In one breath he was saying that we will be losing the reserve and we should not be developing these kinds of sites. In the next breath he said that it is close to modern facilities, transport, and schools. So I am confused about what he wants to say—whether we should be making this kind of a contribution or not.

💬 Denis O’Rourke: The member should have listened to the speech; then he might have understood.

Then he should be clear in what he wants to say. In the next breath he said that he is against migration. I really feel sorry for my good friend Mahesh Bindra, who is part of New Zealand First. He is also a migrant, like me. So we need to understand that migrants bring a lot of contributions to this House—not only to this House, but to the economy. We should understand—

💬 Denis O’Rourke: National’s housing has been a dismal failure, exacerbated by excessive immigration.

You should appreciate what immigration is doing for this country. We bring a lot of investment. We bring a lot of skills. That is why we have got all the migrants coming to this country. New Zealand First is against it. So, with these words, I commend this bill to the House. I hope all the parties will be supporting this bill.

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

Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. Tēnā tātou katoa. This is a good bill, the Point England Development Enabling Bill, and, on the face of it, it holds some genuine promise, I think. I am particularly pleased to be supporting Ngāti Paoa in their partnership of this bill. They are wanting to develop land, much of which was previously used for grazing cows. Homes, not cows, seems like a good idea. I want to spend a bit of time just comparing a few of the other failed initiatives, why this bill is important, and why the Green Party is actively supporting this bill to the Local Government and Environment Committee, notwithstanding some of the concerns or just conversation that the Green Party would like to have with different parties and the community in allowing the bill to get to the select committee.

This bill is good. It is land that, as my colleague Denis O’Rourke has also pointed out, is near good community infrastructure: schools, the town, shops, and public transport, for sure. At this point I think I will just quickly signal my delight in my particular connection to that community over many years. This is partly why the Green Party will be seriously monitoring the Minister’s responses and responsibilities over this development. For many years the Green Party has wanted to stay connected to the voice of the community in Point England, in the Tāmaki region, and including Glen Innes.

For many years I have stood on the very banks of the Ōmaru River, which is a part of this proposed development, and have supported the community call to clean up the pollution in that river. I have personally stood with those who have had to be evicted from their State homes. That process has been a failure, and the delivery of that process has also failed. I have a connection to the community. We cannot ignore this—the Green Party will not ignore this—as we continue to monitor this development.

I want to congratulate Ngāti Paoa on their initiative, on always knowing that this land could be used in a better way, and on wanting to be a big player in that. Part of why this is a better proposal than many that the Government has put up, which the Green Party has opposed, is because of the direct partnership allowance that is able to happen for mana whenua. The generosity of mana whenua in having to depart with funds to claim back their own land, as part of the redress, should not be undermined here, and that has happened all around our country. But certainly the initiative, the generosity, and the vision of Ngāti Paoa is what I am most proud to stand up and support today.

What I also like about this bill is that, unlike other State sell-off legislation that the Green Party has opposed, it does genuinely guarantee and uphold Te Tiriti partnership with mana whenua. We have not appreciated the guise of selling off State homes, with the support that would enable iwi to be a player in those State homes. That sort of legislation, where there is a chance that iwi can be in the seagull pack of all the other people trying to bid for some of those State homes, which are mostly in shocking condition, is not good legislation.

This bill here, on the face of it, has some real promise. We certainly want to keep an eye on the affordability, the good quality design, how it is going to impact on the ecology, and the social housing provision as well. But I have more faith in Ngāti Paoa being able to uphold those qualities. Certainly the Minister has not been able to put up quality solutions—most of his plans have failed. Thank you.

I call Su’a William Sio—5 minutes.

I realise that I stand before David Shearer’s valedictory statement and dinner, so I will come right to the point. The Labour Party supports this bill in its first reading.

Secondly, I am reminded of a saying by my elders “E le’o le fale, ae o le anofale”, meaning the house is not the only thing that is important here. What is more important is what we use the house for—for families, to keep them warm and to keep them safe, to give children a sense of confidence and a sense of stability, and to keep children off the streets, so that they have a home they can call their own. That is the first thing.

The second thing is that if this Government continues to deny that we have a housing crisis, we are not going to solve the problem long term. We are not going to solve the problem long term. See, the numbers that it has thrown up—20 percent social housing and 20 percent affordable housing, meaning 60 percent is commercial housing—do not add up. We have got approximately 42,000 people living in homeless situations—living in cars and in garages—whom we need to take off the street and into homes. Those numbers do not fit. The number of about 1,500 overall does not comply with what the financial institutions are saying, which is that Auckland requires 13,000 houses to be built now.

The third point I want to make is the fact that Ngāti Paoa have come on board. They are building these houses, obviously. They have a social conscience. But this Government does not have a social conscience. It needs to recognise, firstly, that we have a housing crisis, and recognise that we are not just going to build boxes; we need to build communities. We need to give a sense of confidence to those families.

The final part is that I heard the Minister say that affordable housing was in the vicinity of $650,000. Come off it! How can $650,000 be “affordable housing”? Not at the rates of pay that this Government has created for the majority of working-class people up and down this country. So those members have got to do better. They have got to do better.

I am glad that it has been the Labour Opposition—I take that back. It has been the general Opposition of this House that has held this Government to account and has forced it to do something about this housing crisis. But those members do not believe that there is a housing crisis, so they still meddle around with the numbers. Until they adopt the policy that this Labour Party has put up of 10,000 houses a year for the next year 10 years, it will never solve this problem. So, although we support this bill going to a select committee, we need to keep challenging this Government to do far better.

The final point I want to make is this land was reserved years ago as reserve land for the wider community. The money that it makes on this, I have heard the Mayor of Auckland say, ought to go back into building other facilities that will help support a strong, capable community in the Point England area in terms of going forward.

So it is not just about building houses. It is about recognising what this is for—strong, healthy, safe families—and that is what the Labour Party is about.

Kia ora, e Te Mana Whakawā. Very quickly, this particular bill is actually a very good example of the comprehensive plan that the Government has on housing. This bill is also a great example of the Crown working with Māori for this development.

The incredible thing is that in one fell swoop this bill is going to free up underutilised land in Auckland, it is going to increase the housing supply that is needed in Auckland, and it is also going to enable Ngāti Paoa to build their economic base.

So ka pai to the Minister for Building and Housing, ka pai to the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, and ka pai to Ngāti Paoa. I commend this bill to the House. Kia ora.

Debate interrupted.