Kāinga Ora—Homes and Communities Bill

The debate is now on clauses 22 to 34 and Schedules 2 and 3—other matters.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to focus my contribution on clause 22, in Part 2. What this outlines is that the Government must issue a Government policy statement (GPS) on housing and urban development. This is something where we’ve made some changes to this particular clause as a result of some of the submissions received in select committee. So, basically, the original bill laid out that Ministers must issue a GPS on housing and urban development no later than 1 October 2020. However, because of the huge substance that would be required in setting out the Government policy statement, it was thought that that needed an extension, and so this has now been extended to no later than 1 October 2021, just because of the huge number of stakeholders who would need to be consulted on such an important document of this nature.

What Part 2 also outlines is the content and purpose of the GPS. Again, this is something that was changed as a result of select committee submissions, because in addition to outlining what should be in the GPS, a number of the submitters said that it was actually quite important to outline the overall purpose of the GPS. So what we’ve got there are a couple of new pieces being introduced, saying that in terms of the purpose of the GPS, it must state the Government’s overall direction and priorities for housing and urban development, and also inform and guide decisions and actions of agencies involved in the activities necessary or desirable for housing and urban development.

I think this is where the GPS is an incredibly important document, or it’s going to be, because I just think where it would have relevance is down south, where I’m living. Way back in the 1990s in Southland, we had over 800 State houses across our region, and then, as a result of ongoing State housing sales, just before the last election we were down to under 400 State houses in our region. The problem we’ve got is we’ve got an absolute shortage of State housing in our region, so people are really, really struggling to find a decent, warm, dry place to live, particularly those looking for social housing. I think the thing is that there wasn’t any overall, overarching strategic vision of where we were going in housing as a country and as a region, and so taking the eye off the ball over the last decade in terms of thinking about what our needs were for our community and also what we had in terms of the number of houses in our housing stock. So, basically, what this GPS will be incredibly important for is just creating that overall strategic direction of where we want to go in terms of provision of housing.

What the bill lays out is it also gives more detail on what the GPS is needing to include. What it must include is the Government’s overall direction for housing and urban development, and that must include a multi-decade outlook. That’s because it is going to take time, after such a long, long period of State housing sale, to build up our housing stock. It’s going to take time to build those houses and also to be thinking about where they’re best placed and who those in need of housing are, also thinking about a mixture of State housing but affordable housing and the different kinds of housing that are required to make a community thrive.

Then, basically, it also needs to outline the Government’s priorities for housing and urban development and how the Government expects Kāinga Ora to manage its functions and operations to meet the Government’s direction and priorities for housing and urban development. So it’s that broader overarching vision of where we’re going as a country, and thinking more in terms of Kāinga Ora’s operational responsibilities in terms of delivering that. It also outlines how the Government expects other agencies to support that direction and those priorities, because there’s a whole range of other agencies that are involved in the provision of housing and housing support and some of those things in terms of wrapping around—say, for example, with tenants in State housing.

Then, it also must outline the Government’s expectation in relation to Māori interests and partnering with Māori, and protections for Māori interests, and also how the Government expects Kāinga Ora to recognise the need for mitigation and adaptation to the effects of climate change. I think this is going to be incredibly important in terms of thinking with our strategic direction as climate change starts to impact in our communities, and thinking about where we’re having to place our housing stock, whether it needs to be relocated, and that’s where I think a multi-decade approach to housing is also going to be incredibly important. So I think Part 2 is incredibly important in terms of that broader vision of where we’re going in housing.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m always excited, as I say every time, to talk about housing and this Government’s programme, because, as we know, we inherited a housing crisis—and we’re not shy to say that. On that side of the House, though, they denied it for nine long years and neglected this fundamental issue of every Kiwi, every New Zealander, having a warm, dry home. But, look, we want to just get on with it and fix this housing crisis, and this work is a key part of that.

As we know, this is about bringing together our public housing component, which is none other than Housing New Zealand Corporation, together with HLC—Homes. Land. Community., formerly the Hobsonville Land Company—and, of course, the KiwiBuild function. Within those are synergies that we want to bring together and ensure a focused housing production and development effort, notwithstanding the ethos of a public housing service. That is the heart of this Government’s housing policy.

I want to focus on Part 2 and just endorse some of those comments that my colleague has talked about in terms of the Minister issuing a Government policy statement (GPS) on housing and urban development. We’ve heard already that the hard-working committee, the Environment Committee—and thanks to the members of that committee who were allocated this critical piece of work, because they certainly had a very close look. There were, I think, 90-something submissions, from memory. I haven’t got the paperwork here, but over 90 submissions into this, and some changes were made—appropriate changes, can I say, in terms of responding to those submissions.

We’ve heard about the Government policy statement having that multi-decade outlook, and can I say that that’s vital for housing. This shouldn’t be a Government-by-Government programme—

💬 Angie Warren-Clark: Election cycle.

An election cycle—that’s the term I was looking for. Thank you, Angie Warren-Clark. It should take that long-term view, because it’s vital that this has a pipeline. We’ve just come off the back of the Infrastructure Commission. Housing wasn’t mentioned in that, but housing, of course, is infrastructure. This is vital to that, and ensuring that we can look at the housing continuum and every single aspect along there, whether it’s the homelessness, the array of the affordable housing—be it rental, key worker, or, say, a rent-to-own scheme, through to those seeking just to simply look at the homes they do own and make some additions or otherwise through a regulatory framework. All of those need to be part of that multi-decade outlook but tied to a long-term vision for the sector. That’s what the Government policy statement intention is, and that’s been included.

I can now see the link—and I won’t say it wasn’t obvious—in terms of putting it through the Environment Committee. There was no surprise when the expectation came back that there was a contribution to climate change mitigation and adaptation, and that’s important. I’m proud that the committee chose to ensure that this Government’s environmental vision is connected in a way where our public servants, those officials who do the mahi on the ground, will link that work into housing. Look, I haven’t got time to go—

I’m really sorry to interrupt the member, but the time has come for the dinner break.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to just make a few comments about Part 2. The main item in Part 2 is really the requirement that Kāinga Ora—Homes and Communities introduce a Government policy statement (GPS). The motivation behind this provision in the bill is a recognition that the housing and urban development sector is one that has really lacked alignment, a shared sense of strategy, not only from within the Government system but within the broader community: local government, social service providers, community housing providers, and the private sector. This is a desire to see Government really exercising its leadership role and working across all those communities with some common objectives.

It’s inspired in large part by the success, I think, of the Government policy statement on land transport, which is set out in the Land Transport Management Act. The GPS, as it’s fondly known, is produced on a three-yearly cycle, generally in sync with the parliamentary term, and the Minister of Transport and the Ministry of Transport produce that Government Policy Statement on Land Transport every three years. They update it, it has a 10-year horizon, and it sets out the values, the vision, the long-term goals, the strategies, and priorities not only in the case of the Ministry of Transport and the Government’s delivery agency, the New Zealand Transport Agency, but it also sends signals to the Government’s partners, local government, and also to the wider transport communities, including the private sector. People pay a lot of attention to the transport GPS. It is basically the Bible. It sets the direction, and it’s a very powerful policy instrument.

So that was the inspiration for this provision in this bill, to have a GPS on housing and urban development. So it, essentially, will provide the riding instructions for Kāinga Ora on a three-yearly cycle. Of course, it’s not the only tool the Government has to do that. There’s also the Minister’s statement of performance expectations. There are all of the other tools of accountability and direction that Ministers use with Crown agents, but the GPS will be one of the most powerful tools. It sets the overall direction and priorities for the sector, and it tells Kāinga Ora and other agencies how the Government expects them to operate and how it expects them to meet those expectations. The Government policy statement by Kāinga Ora will be developed in consultation with stakeholders, and as is the case with the transport GPS, there are months and months of engagement, consultation, and discussion with stakeholders around the content of the GPS before it’s finalised.

I want to thank the Environment Committee for the work that they did in this area, and there’s a few useful improvements that it’s worth just pointing to. The committee asked that the housing and urban development GPS incorporate a multi-decade outlook. That’s not an unreasonable request given that infrastructure and our urban land markets and the construction markets work on very long cycles and when decisions are made and developments take place, they’ll often have a 50- to 100-year lifetime. So it’s appropriate that we’re thinking with that multi-decade horizon. Of course you’re going to have shorter-term priorities as well. You’re going to have things that you want to happen in the next six months, the next 12 months, the next two or three years, and that can coexist perfectly happily with the requirement for a multi-year time frame.

The committee’s also added a requirement that the GPS outlines how the Government expects Kāinga Ora to contribute to climate change mitigation and adaptation, and I wanted just to take a moment to reflect on that. In almost everything that Government does these days—there is a call for us to address the need for climate change adaptation and mitigation in almost everything that we do, and it’s very appropriate that Kāinga Ora does that as well. The future shape of our towns and cities has to take into account the effects of climate change. It’s not only low-lying housing on coastal strips by the beach and so on where, in some parts of the country, insurers are no longer wanting to insure those properties. I was part of a discussion just the other day looking at urban development and planning in the Waikato corridor, Hamilton to Auckland, and a lot of the existing towns, the river communities, are built on low-lying land close to a lot of water. They’re a long way from the coast, but, actually, under the scenarios for climate change, they’re likely to be affected by a rising water table. So that’s just one example of how our urban planning has to take into account climate change.

The other change to the GPS provisions made by the committee which I think was also pretty helpful was to extend the deadline for the first GPS by a year so that it must now be issued, in the first case, within two years of Kāinga Ora being established. That’s to ensure that what will be a pretty important job, one that we don’t want to rush, we want to be able to consult with all the stakeholders in the wider community—that the newly established Kāinga Ora, from 1 October, doesn’t have to rush that really important job; they need to take their time and do it properly. So the committee’s helpfully suggested an extra year in that case.

I will leave that there, but I am very happy to take questions and respond to members’ concerns as the debate goes on.

I’m delighted to call on this bill, and I do have some questions immediately for the Minister in the chair, Phil Twyford, around the nature of the Government policy statement (GPS) and its concreteness or otherwise in terms of the ability to be nimble, to seize on opportunities, and to respond to local changes in the environment. The Government’s overall directions and priorities for housing and urban development, presumably, are at a relatively high level, but, I guess, just how specific are these GPSs expected to be?

I’ll pick an example, which is South Dunedin. It’s known to be an area where climate change represents a very real threat. It is an area that has been marked by some political parties in this House as a focus for an urban development agency, a focus for attention as an area that needs to see a response that is beyond what the local government situation could deliver. It’s very clear that the threat is real, and I’ve seen some of the data at the regional council level where the tides dictate—I think it’s within a kilometre of the shore front at St Clair—the groundwater levels. They go up and down, and, if memory serves me right, it’s by metres a day, the groundwater levels, because the soil is permeable, there’s a lot of sand in there. The threat of climate change is real, and, indeed, the salinity of the water there has an effect as well.

And yet we know that no Government historically has really grappled with the challenge that that represents to the people that have invested there, that have bought houses, that have developed family connections to the area over generations now, that have invested in the family home, that are now facing those difficult decisions about where to go from here. I agree that it’s important to have a statement about what’s expected so that they can begin to shape expectations over a long period of time.

But my question, really, is around the degree of flexibility, because if the local council takes decisions on zoning of land or on the way in which it sees urban development changing over time, and that presents opportunities for Governments to move sooner or to make decisions later, what degree of flexibility is anticipated to be in the Government policy statement to respond to the local situations, or, indeed, if the situation fundamentally changes?

So in that example, we’ve had great big sandbanks and things, rocks have been placed at the shorefront and so on, when there have been threats to break through the banks there. There is an old rubbish dump that sits under land close to the ocean. Again, in overseas jurisdictions, there have been whole cities, really, that have been threatened by rising tides—low-lying cities. If the situation were to fundamentally change—and that’s not anticipated, and I certainly hope that it doesn’t, because I think any change there will need to be carefully managed in line with the community’s needs, and there are vulnerable people in that community—I’m interested to understand how the Government policy statement would be positioned to give the necessary flexibility to respond to immediate threats, how it would position a transition over time, what steps a Government could signal in the Government policy statement, and what would be more tactical decisions—if you like—what would be the kinds of decisions that we work through in the community as it prioritised how it responded, understanding local needs.

So, in particular, I guess, the challenge there as to how that sits alongside clause 24(1)(a): the idea that the Government’s overall direction must include a multi-decade outlook. So it’s impossible, in my view, to know quite how quickly some of these changes will happen or, indeed, if something catastrophic was to happen, like a sandbank was to move or break, or we had significant flooding, as has happened in the past in South Dunedin, what the impact would look like and what the tension would be with that multi-decade outlook.

Now, I say that thinking also of the engagement that will have been had with developers, and the necessity—and, I guess, this is coming to my second question, which is: what level of engagement has happened with developers in developing this policy? What signals has the Minister had in terms of the optimal time frame under clause 24(1)(a)? Clearly, it’s signalled that it’s going to be a multi-decade outlook; to what extent is that because industry wants the certainty of direction of travel for investment purposes, for hiring workforces, and so on? And how much certainty does the Minister think that he can give—or any future Minister can give—to that pipeline of work and the direction of travel, particularly around climate change issues?

We’ve got to accept that situations will change; threats can be more imminent. Certainly in Dunedin, the event of two floods that were each deemed to be—and I’m not now certain—I think, one in 100-year events, but they have twice happened in a short period of time, indicates that situations can change. Now, it may prove that they were not events that are going to happen as rapidly again, but certainly that is sharpening the mind.

I have another question—which is not related to the first two but which I would also appreciate a response from the Minister on—which is in respect of Part 2 clause 29(2)(b). There’s the little rider here, which talks about the provisions of this subpart relating to the preparation and availability of a Government policy statement “(a) apply with the necessary modifications to an amendment to the Government policy statement; but (b) do not apply if the amendment to the Government policy statement is not significant.” I guess the link I’m making here is: what counts as significant? Again, all of these situations that arise could be deemed to be significant or not significant. How is that judgment to be made as to what is significant, and will that dictate the preparation availability of the Government policy statement and the changes? Is there a test going to be applied in the guidance around preparing Government policy statements that will dictate what significance looks like? Is that simply at the judgment of those preparing the Government policy statement, as to what is significant and what is not significant or is there an existing test at law as to what constitutes significance in this circumstance?

And, I guess, finally: how has that been applied overseas in similar vehicles; how have they deemed what is a significant change to a Government policy statement? Do we have overseas examples of Government policy statements done well that we could be learning from, that the Minister has looked at or examined, or his officials have looked at? And do we have examples of Government policy statement - type documents that have proven not to be as flexible as is needed and that we would very much like to avoid as a country? I think part of the debate we’re having here is putting on record, probably, some of the guidance too to those who will be developing these documents; guidance as to how they will be interpreted in future years.

And this, I think, is a really significant change that we are making as a country. I ask these difficult questions not to be difficult to the Minister but because I believe this is really important legislation we’re passing here, which will shape the responses that have lacked.

So I do want to end with a positive note. This kind of guidance, this kind of certainty—and I do appreciate that a lot of this will be about giving industry certainty about giving those who are involved in our urban planning certainty—has lacked in our country. And that’s how we’ve ended up in situations where we do have huge challenges around the country in respect of climate change and in respect of all kinds of infrastructure shortages and so on.

So I’m very interested to hear what we can learn from those overseas jurisdictions as well. And I want to congratulate the Minister for the work that he has done on this bill, because this is a really important piece of legislation that will change the shape of New Zealand—I absolutely accept that. So those questions are meant as questions for refinement and to illuminate for those who will interpret this legislation in time to come. I congratulate the Minister on his good work and the groundbreaking changes that are going to be passing through this House. I’m very pleased to support the bill, but I do wish to have those questions answered. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Let me just respond to some of those points raised by the Hon David Clark, who asked about whether or not the Government policy statement will have a level of agility and flexibility attached to it and what kind of engagement has been had with developers in crafting the provisions in Part 2. And, secondly, clause 29(2)(b), the question about whether an amendment is significant or not, and therefore would need to be consulted.

It’s probably worthwhile, for this discussion, just to kind of step back a second and just remind members and anyone listening to this that there are two main things that we’re asking Kāinga Ora—Homes and Communities to do. There are two main functions that the organisation will have—I should say three, actually. The first is that it will be the home of public housing, so it is the new organisation that will inherit this great 100-year legacy in New Zealand of public housing; of the Government acting—when the market fails—to build and own and rent quality housing for people who would otherwise struggle to in the market.

The second is that we are building, in Kāinga Ora—Homes and Communities, the capacity to deliver the Government build programme. Our Government shares an ambition that many Governments have had in the past in New Zealand, and that is to ensure that, alongside the private sector, we’re using the levers available for the State to ensure that there is an adequate supply of the kind of quality housing that people want in places where they need it. And that’s why we’re amalgamating HLC—the people who brought us Hobsonville Point—with the KiwiBuild procurement team, and the construction and development element that currently exists within Housing New Zealand.

Those three functions are being merged together to create one powerful entity to drive the Government build programme that includes public housing, emergency housing, affordable housing, partnering with community housing providers, the building of KiwiBuild affordable homes, and the market homes that will sit alongside all those different kinds of homes and tenures in large-scale development projects.

The third key function is the ability in the special powers that will follow in the second bill after this to undertake large-scale urban development projects: so the likes of a Hobsonville, a Tāmaki. The member David Clark referred to South Dunedin, which I want to talk a little bit about because there is a really interesting example. In fact, over the last several years, as we’ve been discussing this policy and developing it, we’ve often talked about South Dunedin as a place that would benefit from precisely this kind of mechanism that we’re setting up here: a public agency that has access to all of the powers that local government currently has of land-use regulation, network infrastructure, transport, the three waters, parks and reserves, amalgamating land titles, financing, raising revenue to support investment—to do all of these things and to be a joint venture vehicle through which Government and central government could, and even private investors and iwi could be part of it, tackle some of the more complex and challenging land-use issues of our time.

Now, South Dunedin is a community that is desperately in need of an upgrade to its housing stock and its infrastructure and faces some real challenges, environmental challenges, caused by very low lying land and the threats posed by rising sea levels. South Dunedin is one place that could really benefit from this kind of approach. The member asked: would this legislation and would Kāinga Ora have through its Government policy statement (GPS) the kind of agility and the flexibility to respond to things that might happen like the floods that happened in Dunedin that might spark, for instance, a local authority to say, “We need to act. We need to do something about this.”

I guess the best response I can give is that when I look at the transport GPS it does provide that flexibility. It sets out high-level goals. It actually sets out activity classes—so spending bands for a three-year programme with a range of spending possibilities against different activity classes in the transport budget. But it gives the Crown agent—in this case Kāinga Ora; in that case the New Zealand Transport Agency—the flexibility to operate within those bands. It sets out the policy goals, the priorities, the analysis that underpins the strategy, but it empowers—

💬 Andrew Bayly: This is marvellous.

I’m glad the member agrees.

💬 Andrew Bayly: We just hope you will have the opportunity for other Ministers to speak, because we need them all down in the House tonight.

I’m glad the member agrees. It gives the Crown agency the ability to operate within those parameters, so I think it does, in fact, provide plenty of flexibility and agility.

David Clark asked whether there’d been any engagement with developers and, in fact, there has been—in fact, in the lead-up to the drafting of the legislation a lot of dialogue with the developers in the private sector. And in the oral submissions at select committee both the Property Council and Infrastructure New Zealand, the lobby group that represents the private sector infrastructure industry, supported at the committee a GPS with a long-term vision that is more than 10 years. And as the member alluded, I think a lot of that has to do with their desire to see a long-term pipeline of work and some stability and consensus. One of the benefits of the GPS and having a Crown agent that exercises some autonomy at arm’s length to a degree from the day-to-day accountability to the Minister is the desire to try to take some of the politics out of it, to build consensus and public support around the long-term strategy, and to a degree that’s also part of the strategy here.

My sense is that the GPS will actually set some of the priorities. An example might be: what kind of large-scale projects should Kāinga Ora focus on? So there are a number of choices here. We could focus on greenfield projects on the edge of town: some projects in places like Hamilton, in places like Rotokauri North. In places like Tauranga it could be Te Tumu and Tauriko West. Or, the GPS, for example, might say, “We think the priority is to do urban intensification projects in the urban half of the city.”, which is what this organisation is tooled up to do. So all those things are possible.

It’s also the case that the special powers that will follow in the next bill will allow not just residential projects but actually urban development or regeneration: for instance, shifting a port, something that’s very dear to the heart of our colleagues in New Zealand First; or reworking an old industrial area to build a stadium or some new kind of economic activity. So I think there’s plenty of flexibility within the GPS to both set direction but also leave Kāinga Ora and all of the other organisations in the sector the ability to respond to day-to-day events.

Finally, David Clark asked about clause 29(2)(b) and my understanding and my advice is that all that that provision means is that if there is a change that is minor and technical in nature no consultation is required. And so the test there is whether it’s anything more than minor and technical, and if it is significant then it would require consultation.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Oh, Madam Chair, that’s a beautiful expression. I am delighted to have a chance just to contribute a little to this discussion tonight. The reason is that this bill came in to the Environment Committee round about May this year when I was chair of the committee and got the work on this bill under way—you know, the submissions and then getting them in. I heard some of the submissions on the bill, but as we were partway through that process of hearing submissions and getting really into the nitty gritty of working out what was going to be done with the bill, we had a bit of a shuffle around and I moved over to chairing the Finance and Expenditure Committee and so I was no longer sitting on the Environment Committee, so I missed the opportunity to really understand some of the details in this bill. I had read the bill as it was but I hadn’t seen the changes that the select committee suggested for it and they are quite interesting, particularly around the Government policy statement (GPS) and some of the links between the Kāinga Ora bill and some of the other bills that we’ve been working on in this House, and I’m interested to know from the Minister to what extent the progress of the bills has influenced each other.

I would like to direct the Minister’s attention, in particular, to clause 24 of the bill, which is talking about the purpose of the GPS and there are two issues there that intrigued me. It sets the overall direction and priorities—so that’s in clause 24(1AAA)(a) and (b)—but then in clause 24(1)(a) the “multi-decade outlook:”. What it made me consider was the links between the thinking around this bill and the thinking around the Infrastructure Commission bill, because they are both focussing on that long-term outlook, and I guess I want to know from the Minister to what extent he would expect that some of the findings of the Infrastructure Commission or the reports from there might influence what would go on in the context of the GPS issued under this bill, the Kāinga Ora bill, and, in particular, again that multi-decade outlook. Our colleague Dr Clark has talked about that this evening, but I was thinking, “Well, ‘multi-decade’—how many years are we expecting the GPS to go over?” The Infrastructure Commission talks in terms of 30 years, I think, but it is that sort of time horizon in where we are thinking. So I’m interested in that, and those links between the bills.

The other one that I am interested in is clause 24A—and these are all things that have been inserted by the Environment Committee so I’m quite interested. In clause 24A(a), it talks about “that the GPS promotes a housing and urban development system that contributes to the current and future well-being of New Zealanders;”. Again, that’s quite interesting in the context of the Public Finance (Wellbeing) Amendment Bill, which had its first reading in this House just yesterday evening. It’s not just the word “wellbeing” that sits in there that triggers the connection—obviously, that’s a very clear signal that these two entities are linked. But, of course, it’s also that focus on communities, and understanding how communities develop, and what communities need, and what their expectations are, and what works best to support communities and developments—especially in that wellbeing context. Again, I’m interested to understand the links between this bill and the wellbeing approach which is going to be introduced into the Public Finance Act. I guess it signifies a lot of joined-up thinking, which we know is something that Government is always interested in doing to make sure that Ministers and agencies don’t operate in silos.

So I am looking for some comment from the Minister on the work that he has done with his colleagues and, I guess, also the extent to which officials may have been communicating with each other about how to link up these three bills which, to my mind, do have a very clear relationship to each other and do guide us in a much more interesting direction in housing policy.

I have got a couple of questions for the Minister, but first of all I want to look at Subpart 2—“Other enactments”. I think this bill is historical in the sense that it actually repeals the Housing Corporation Act of 1974. Now, this is a 35-year-old Act so it’s about time it was updated, but this was a really innovative piece of legislation when it came in because what it did—the Housing Corporation New Zealand—

💬 Hon Dr David Clark: 45 years, isn’t it?

Well, maybe my maths is wrong—45, you’re dead right, Mr Clark—45-year-old piece of legislation, therefore, it really is overdue. But what the housing corporation did is it brought the State Advances Corporation and the housing division of the Ministry of Works together to form the housing corporation. The housing corporation was sort of synonymous with State housing so, you know, some people talked about growing up in a State house, others talked about growing up in a housing corporation house, and this piece of legislation repeals the Housing Corporation Act of 1974.

I suppose, if you look at the history of State house innovation in this country you had the first Labour Government, obviously, with the massive State house programme that went on under Michael Joseph Savage and Peter Fraser, you had the second massive State house building programme under Norman Kirk, and then you had the sixth Labour Government with Phil Twyford, under the Ardern Government. So this really is a very innovative piece of legislation that is driving change in a way that is needed after 45 years of sort of tinkering around the edges. So I do congratulate you, Minister, on the fact that the bill that you have brought to the House is so important. It is repealing what is an iconic piece of legislation. In fact, if you look at Wikipedia it actually says one of the major initiatives of the Kirk Government was the formation of the housing corporation.

I’d also like to commend the Minister, because there are a couple of other titles of pieces of legislation or regulations that have changed, and the fact that these regulations—they used to be the public housing management appeals regulations—are now the public and community. So we’re recognising that it’s not just about the public, it’s not just about the State, it’s about our communities. This is where decisions are made; it is at community levels, because it’s only through creating health and wellbeing in our communities that we will grow a decent and prosperous society. So well done on that, Minister, in terms of getting the nuances right.

There are a couple of questions I have. I do note, as the Minister himself has highlighted, that initially the Government policy statement (GPS) was to report back in October this year, but it has been pushed out a year. But I also note that the Environment Committee made a change where—the policy statement had to be updated at least every 10 years, but that’s moved back to three years. I know this is obviously a significant piece of work or else the select committee would not have allowed you an extra year to develop a Government policy statement, but with such a statement I wonder why, in fact, it has moved from a 10-year update to a compulsory three-year update when it’s actually got—in the legislation it actually says “The Minister may review the [Government policy statement] at any time”. So if it was 10 years, the Minister still had the ability to review it. But I wondered if, in fact, the select committee felt that it must be reviewed every three years, or what the reason was behind that?

The other thing I note, clause 28—it talks about the availability of the GPS, and this is where we bring in a level of transparency, because what it says is that “(1) … the Ministers must—(a) present a copy of the GPS to the House of Representatives;”, but it says “As soon as practicable”. Whenever I see those words—I mean, I support this, don’t get me wrong, please don’t get me wrong, but what does “As soon as practicable” mean? Are we talking about a six-month time frame before the Government policy statement is actually being presented and delivered, or are we talking about the next sitting week? Now, there is an element here, because what we don’t want to have happen is in 15 years’ time we have a National Government obfuscate—

💬 Angie Warren-Clark: 20 years.

—because they don’t think—or 20 years—that the Government policy statement will pass the sniff test, so they’ll just say, “Oh, it’s ‘As soon as practicable’. We’re not going to deliver this.”. So we want to ensure that “As soon as practicable” actually has a pretty well-defined time frame from a Minister’s perspective. I would suggest that once it’s been delivered and presented and all the objectives are met it’s probably, I don’t know, the next sitting week? That would be my expectation, but maybe the Minister has an expectation because it also says here: “The chief executive must make the GPS publicly available as soon as practicable.”. I’m assuming it’s possibly the same time it’s presented to the House, but if there isn’t there may be a reason. But that’s all, Minister. A couple of simple questions there, and I’m sure he’ll have answers. I just want to reiterate: congratulations on replacing the Housing Corporation Act, this is pivotal.

I move, That the question be now put.

Thank you, Madam Chair. [Interruption] There was such a—

💬 Hon Dr David Clark: I raise a point of order, Madam Chair. My question might have been answered, Madam Chair, sorry to interrupt. I could not hear, over the cries of “Marvellous” from the Opposition, who was actually taking the call. I noticed some of my colleagues sat down and stood up again, likewise because they couldn’t hear who took the call.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): It’s because I have such a quiet voice, Dr Clark. Angie Warren-Clark has the call.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Gosh, it’s great to get a call. It took some time; I’ve been jumping up and down for quite a number of minutes now. I want to, first of all, begin with congratulating the Minister as well. This is an absolutely transformational piece of legislation and as a member of the Environment Committee I have to say it was a real pleasure to look at this piece of legislation and to be part of the Government making this significant shift.

We are not going to be talking about Part 1, but I do have to just acknowledge the fact that, as Minister Nash has noted, we are removing or getting rid of Housing New Zealand—putting them into this body. It’s all about moving forward. It must be wonderful for those staff to be in such a journey, moving forward.

Look, I’m going to have a talk about the purpose of the Government policy statement (GPS) tonight, and a lot of people have already raised the issues that I had questions about. Having sat on the select committee, we have quite a few answers in there. However, I wanted to just note around the overall direction around the multi-decade outlook. This was an issue that we discussed quite at length in the select committee, and we talked about: what does multi-decade mean? It came down to a normal definition. However, the intent behind the discussion was really about the fact that we have a plan going forward as a Government and that the GPS looks at a long-term view. Now, we know what we inherited. We know we inherited this mess—this homelessness mess. We know that it’s going to take a long time to fix this mess, but this is the beginning of this transformation, and I’m so very proud that we’ve got here.

I want to also acknowledge the submitters who came and spoke to us with such hope, and that was across the whole sector. They spoke to us with such hope and such positivity around what the content of this bill was about, and they wanted to work in partnership. They’ve been asking for it, and now we are giving them that.

So I wanted to just address that multi-decade outlook, but I also wanted to raise—which hasn’t been raised—clause 24(1)(e) “the Government’s expectations in relation to Māori interests, partnering with Māori, and [the] protections [of] Māori interests:”. So in Part 1 of the bill, we built in a clause. It’s not a standard Treaty clause; it’s actually a clause with a little bit more specialness to it. So it talks about the Treaty of Waitangi and the principles, and so I would be interested in the Minister explaining to this House—for the benefit of, perhaps, the Opposition, who have not yet risen to take a call on this transformational piece of legislation—how that is intended to occur. I think it’s really important, because, essentially, we are looking—when this GPS is written—around consulting with local government, other Government agencies, Māori and mana whenua, infrastructure providers, developers, community housing providers, and other essential partners. So there is this huge list, but, particularly in regards to the special place for tangata whenua and the Treaty of Waitangi, I’d be very interested in the Minister talking to that point and expressing how that will be carried out.

With that, I have another couple of calls that I’m going to take a little bit later, but, with that, thank you, Minister.

Before I call the next member, can I just advise that I have alerted the Minister to the fact that he’s not likely to answer the questions just posed by the member at the very tail end of his speech, because they’re in Part 1. The rest of the speech was perfectly in order, addressing Part 2, but the question you asked right at the end, Angie Warren-Clark, was related to Part 1.

It’s a pleasure to talk again on this bill, and I want to focus again on the Government policy statement (GPS), because I think it’s incredibly important in terms of seeing that strategic direction for housing and urban development in New Zealand.

Basically, as we’ve already mentioned, this has actually been extended by one year. So what the legislation says at the moment—what the bill says—is a Minister “must issue a GPS on housing and urban development no later than 1 October 2021.” The bill also outlines who must be consulted in terms of developing that GPS, and it’s not only Kāinga Ora itself but it’s also any people or groups with an interest in housing or urban development. It’s really important that we take that time, because this is something that’s incredibly significant for our country.

I’d just like to read you, in the Auckland Council submission, some of their thoughts on the GPS. They said, “We believe the GPS needs to set out a clear direction for Kāinga Ora … and help the agency to prioritise and focus its efforts where they will have the most impact. Without this guidance there is a risk that the agency will be spread too thinly across multiple locations which will hamper its ability to implement programmes efficiently and effectively. The GPS therefore has an important role to play in setting clear expectations and priorities for the new entity across the complex urban and housing system.” They also go on to say, “This will also help provide certainty to developers, communities and local government.” I think Auckland Council was thinking about the direction that the GPS would be providing Kāinga Ora, but I also think that when we’ve got the purpose and the content of the GPS outlined in the bill, what it talks about is that much more broader approach as well, because it’s not just Kāinga Ora but it’s our whole housing and urban development that we’ll be looking at in terms that strategic direction.

So the purpose that’s been introduced into the bill is that it’s to “state the Government’s overall direction and priorities for housing and urban development;” and also to “inform and guide the decisions and actions of agencies involved in, and the activities necessary or desirable for, housing and urban development.”

I think, just reflecting, we haven’t actually seen yet—because it’s still to be developed under consultation—what these priorities may be. But I think, linking back to Part 1 of the bill, where the bill outlines its operating principles, it’d be just nice to get the Minister’s reflection on, as we think about the GPS moving forward, how many of those operating principles will be underpinning and incorporated in that, because I think there’s a number of them that I think are particularly relevant.

I think the first one in the operating principles in clause 14(1)(a) is “providing good quality, warm, dry, and healthy rental housing:”. I mean, this is something with the housing crisis that we’ve inherited—this is one of the things: there’s a huge need for warm, dry, affordable rental accommodation. Where I live down south, it’s an incredible acute shortage, and it is, it sounds like, around the country. So having this in a GPS, and thinking about how we make sure, in our broader strategic direction, that we’ve got sufficient rental housing of a good quality to meet people’s housing needs is incredibly important.

Then, some of the other operating principles which relate to ensuring housing supply meets needs I think are probably quite important. One of them is clause 14(1)(e) “managing its housing stock prudently, including upgrading and managing its housing to ensure it remains fit for purpose:”—so thinking through how we make sure we’ve got that fit for purpose housing.

Then the second one is clause 14(1)(f) “ensuring that the housing it develops is appropriately mixed”—so that’s public, affordable, and market housing—“and is of good quality:”. I think, again, it’s thinking about, if we’re doing these urban development projects, making sure that we do we do have that mix of housing, because we’re not just creating houses; we’re creating a community, and we’re making a community of people that are going to be coming together and living and sharing a lot of time together in that community.

I think the other thing that we’ve put into the operating principles: we’ve had the need to mitigate and adapt to the effects of climate change. I think this is incredibly important, and that’s not only in the operating principles but it’s also outlined in Part 2 of the bill, where it outlines what the GPS must include. Among the other things it’s talking about is a multi-decade approach, and this is where we’ve got to set that broader vision, because this infrastructure will take time to develop. But it also says that it must include how the Government expects Kāinga Ora to recognise the need to mitigate and adapt to the effects of climate change, because a lot of our housing in our country is within a few metres of sea level rise but also a lot of our basic infrastructure—our roads and our airports—are the same. It’s going to be really important to take that multi-decade approach in terms of thinking where we’re putting our housing in the bigger picture. So thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to respond to a number of the points that have been made by the last few speakers, starting with Dr Deborah Russell, who very interestingly asks the extent to which this bill has been influenced by Te Waihanga Bill—the infrastructure commission bill that we were debating earlier this afternoon—and also the work that’s being done in amending the Public Finance Act to incorporate this governance approach to putting wellbeing at the heart of our work.

So there’s no question, actually, that there has been a lot of joined-up thinking in relation to infrastructure and housing. I think that these two moves—(1) to establish the Infrastructure Commission to lift the level of the performance of Government and the private sector together in the way that we plan, invest, and build the infrastructure that our country needs, and (2) this bill, establishing a new delivery agency for the built environment, to build the Government’s housing programme and also to undertake large-scale and complex urban development projects.

These are two really groundbreaking institution-building efforts. Without a doubt, we recognise that infrastructure plays a critical role in the building and the growth of our towns and cities, first in the sense that unless we include and plan for and invest in the infrastructure that strong communities need—good transport connections, environmental protection, the three waters, civic amenities, access to jobs—then we’re not actually doing justice to the aspirations and the needs of future generations. But secondly, unless we can build more infrastructure, particularly transport and the three waters, that will allow towns and cities to grow, we’ll never see the expansion in the housing supply that we desperately need. I could name a dozen different developments around the country today that are held up because we’re struggling to fund and finance the transport infrastructure, whether it’s roads or rail or whatever, that allows those communities to go ahead, both in greenfields locations and in brownfields locations. So joining up infrastructure planning with expansion of the housing supply is absolutely critical, so there are very strong connections between those two.

The member also cited the clause in the bill about the current and future wellbeing of New Zealanders—that the housing and urban development system should be geared to the current and future wellbeing. I think that’s a really, really important sentence in this bill. First, it acknowledges that there is a housing and urban development system. It is not just a random collection of some developers building houses here and the Government doing some State housing over there; it’s actually one complex system that is highly integrated, and we have to recognise it in that way. The other thing is that we’re locating this entire effort around wellbeing—the wellbeing of our families, communities, and future generations—and that is the purpose of what we’re trying to do.

That links very nicely to Liz Craig’s question before, where she asked about the extent to which the operating principle set out in clause 14 in Part 1 of the bill—and asked, really, what is the connection between those operating principles and the Government policy statement? Well, the operating principles are specifically for public housing. They are this Government’s charter for public housing for the 21st century. They’re a rejection of the idea that the Government should just sell off public housing and get someone else to do it. They are an assertion of the idea that public housing is a core role of Government and that we should do it in certain ways—you know, supporting tenants “to be well connected to their communities”, “to lead lives with dignity and the greatest degree of independence possible”, “to sustain tenancies”. This goes to the heart of this Government’s philosophy about public housing, and those values about wellbeing, about manaakitanga, about kaitiakitanga, they will be reflected, they will be front and centre in the Government policy statement, because that’s how we will be communicating the values and what we stand for.

I want to go back to Stuart Nash’s comment. He pointed out that the bill repeals the Housing Corporation Act 1974. That 1974 Act, in fact, as the member said, was a merger of State Advances Corporation with the existing housing organisation that created what we knew as housing corp for many, many years. I think it’s fair to say that this bill is a kind of a generational change, much like that bill was back then, and it reflects our generation’s view that public housing, State housing, and community housing has to be fully integrated and at the heart of everything we do to build new communities and new towns. So it’s our expectation, through Kāinga Ora, and this will be communicated through the Government policy statement, that every time the Government is involved in building new communities—whether it’s Drury in South Auckland, whether it’s Tauriko West in the Bay of Plenty, whether it’s the Unitec development in Mount Albert, whether it’s Porirua East in the Wellington region—State and community housing, public housing, should be fully integrated always into new developments. We don’t believe that State housing is just welfare housing of last resort and it should be concentrated in ghettos in the poorest part of town, furthest away from the jobs and the amenities. That is not our philosophy.

As well as repealing the Housing Corporation Act 1974, we’re doing some other, I think, quite exciting things with this bill. We are abolishing the provisions that the former National Government passed to facilitate the mass sell-off of State housing. That is very significant. Any future Government that comes in and wants to sell off large quantities of State housing, as the former Government did, then they will have to change the law explicitly to allow that, because this bill takes away those provisions.

Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s a pleasure to rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak on Part 2 of this Kāinga Ora—Homes and Communities Bill. Just to reiterate the point just made by the Hon Phil Twyford—he’s sat down—about the proud legacy that New Zealand has of supplying social housing. I note that in the bill it’s not just “Kāinga Ora—Homes”; it is “and Communities”, because housing is an important part of communities, and we know that to get good social outcomes we need good, stable homes, and for too many of our citizens, that is not their reality. This bill will go some way to addressing that. The laissez-faire model that we have had probably over the last 10 or 20 years has, essentially, failed us, or certainly failed the people of more modest means, and has been subject to three-year election cycles.

What I like about the Government policy statement (GPS) is this multi-decade horizon and thinking. I’ve just been sitting in on the zero carbon bill on some of the big issues around mitigation and adaptation, and submitter after submitter has been coming in and, while commending the bill, has also been talking about the need for us at a public level to be looking at adaptation and how public planning facilitates that, and this bill does exactly that. I guess that the example before of South Dunedin that Dr Clark brought up in his contribution is a very, very good example of that.

Of course, this is a precursor to a second tranche of legislation that will help with large-scale urban development that builds on that theme. It’s almost like we’ve got in the Hon Phil Twyford a cross between Savage and Muldoon, with this “think big” and social housing focus that he’s got—a hybrid of that. He’s obviously bringing some action and some planning, getting rid of some red tape, and taking some of these big hairy issues on head-on, and putting the power of the State behind that. Also, of course, it’s addressed here and has been discussed about the Infrastructure Commission and how it ties in with that, in that forward-looking—so we’ve got our transport and the like lined up with our housing, and that’s the benefit of these multi-year time frames that we’re looking at.

I noticed the question asked by the Hon Stuart Nash was not answered about the three-year intervals for the reviews. I too looked at that. Is that an arbitrary number? As a relatively new member—is that just a standard number that was put in? So I’d be interested in hearing the answer to that.

I was also interested in clause 24(2), which says, “The GPS may include any other matters the Minister considers relevant.” To me, that sounds like sweeping powers, and maybe the Muldoon analogy had been taken a little bit far, and I just wonder whether you were trying to slip a clause in there to put some wide-ranging, sweeping powers in there that maybe we’re not quite alert to as a Parliament, so I would like to get some reassurance from you that there is some control around what that might be.

So that was some of the major issues. I also looked at clause 27: “This subpart does not limit other provisions relating to directions in the Crown Entities Act 2004.” I’m not familiar with that Act and I just wonder—it’s a very general question, but I wonder if you could give a summary as to what that actually means in terms of what directions that is not limiting. That sounds pretty wide ranging as well, so maybe the Minister would like to give us a summary. He may need his officials. I realise it’s probably a reasonably unfair question, to expect him to know that off the top of his head, although he may well do so.

Madam Chair, I do thank you for allowing me to ask some of these pressing questions. I think they’re important. This is going to be a very significant bill. It’s long overdue. It will be again this wellbeing theme that’s coming from our Government, and we continue to support this bill through this process.

I move, That the question be now put.

Look, I want to thank you this evening for allowing us to, I guess, engage in such a robust discussion on Part 2 of this bill. This is, as the Chair will be aware and this committee will be aware—in fact, everybody watching this debate will be aware just how significant housing issues in New Zealand have become. It’s because of these housing issues that we are here this evening to go through in some detail, I might add, I guess, some of the more pivotal legislation that will enable this Government to transition the current housing regulatory environment towards something that is transformational and will have well-felt impacts on the ground.

Now, I guess, for me, as I didn’t have the opportunity to sit on the select committee, but I did have a lot of questions—and I had a lot of questions about, in particular, Part 2 of this bill, because of the exemplary submissions that were received across a whole wide array of particulars and particular details that came through. My question’s to the Minister. Minister, there are a range of reforms that I note, and I’m going to work through relatively systematically so that it’s easy for you, of course, to take note and, I guess, answer my questions in turn.

Now, if I turn to clause 22(1), the original date there that was proposed about when the Minister must make or issue a Government policy statement (GPS) on housing and urban development was 1 October 2020. So that would be next year. Now, I note that that has been extended by a year. As I’ve been going through the submissions, and there are numerous submissions—probably in excess of 100 or so—I was ardently looking for a submitter that proposed an amendment to that particular time. Just noting the gravity of the housing environment and wanting to reset the housing situation that we have in New Zealand, I would be interested just to understand the transition there as to why the proposal of an extension for a year has been put there.

Then, if I turn to subclause (2) of that same provision, there’s been an inclusion there that says that the Minister can review at any time. I’m just wanting to understand why the discretion “at any time”. That seems to be a relatively broad—well, it’s absolutely broad and relatively uncommon to see in this type of legislation, so I was interested in your views there, in particular.

But, actually, as I went through the submissions, something came through from my home patch in the Bay of Plenty. I noticed that all of the local body councils in the Bay of Plenty—in particular, Western Bay of Plenty, Bay of Plenty and, who else, Tauranga District Council—submitted on this bill and some made some relatively persuasive submissions, I thought, in regards to clause 23. Now, clause 23 has been omitted from this current piece of legislation that we’re debating this evening. But I guess the tenor of the submissions put forward from those councils in my patch of the woods was about linking in particular the GPS and the process to go about, I guess, making sure that the GPS settings were linked to other instrumental planning instruments, of course, that flow through from other pieces of legislation like the Resource Management Act, national policy statements, environmental impact statements, and the like. I’d be interested, because that provision has been deleted, whether there are any other subclauses within this bill that deal to that point in particular. I guess it’s about synchronicity or—[Time expired]

Actually, I apologise to my colleague for cutting her off, but I want to endorse all the comments that have made on this side of the Chamber to the Minister for your leadership, in particular with the Government policy statement (GPS), because it was a result of some pretty careful thinking about what would best reflect the strategic approach to the housing aspirations of the Government within new legislation that you innovatively inserted the concept of a GPS.

I wanted to highlight that, because what that did in itself, and for anyone who is listening to the debate, is it elevated the responsibility of a Government to actually set out what the strategic plan is in terms of its housing strategy. But given that we have a very complex planning environment, that there are challenging land assembly, land availability aspects in order to ensure that good housing development can happen in urban areas, the GPS is well positioned to actually cover many of those things.

When we look at clause 24, it sets out what the GPS must include. I wanted to pick up briefly on a comment started by my colleague Angie Warren-Clark and raise a further question with the Minister in so far as clause 24(1)(e) says: “The Government’s expectations are in relation to Māori interests, partnering with Māori, and protections for Māori interests:”, because I know that the substance of the bill—and while we’re not on any other part, but the substance of the bill actually highlights some elements that cut to this particular clause around having regard for Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 and the way in which those interests must be considered within the context of a GPS and planning around those communities.

The other question I had was around the level of public engagement. Clause 24A(b) sets out “consult Kāinga Ora—Homes and Communities and persons, and representative groups of persons, who have an interest in housing and urban development in New Zealand.” and that applies to when the GPS is being prepared.

Now, that’s a real different shift in thinking in terms of engaging the public in a conversation around a strategic document setting out the aspirations of what the Government will commit to in the housing space. I believe that holds faith with many New Zealanders who want to see smart urban development, who want to be engaged in that question, who want to ensure that their high value priorities are taken account of. So, Minister, if you could perhaps highlight how you see the level of engagement in the GPS occurring, I’m sure many people who are listening to the debate will be encouraged by that insertion within the bill.

The other component of the GPS—and it has been somewhat covered previously—was the Minister’s call around what would be reviewable. Would the whole GPS be reviewable? Would you pick out parts of the GPS for specific reasons to actually have a more intensive look, and what might you gain from that? But, underpinning a review of the GPS, could we be assured—could the Minister assure the committee—that the metrics used to, I guess, assess the strategy and the deliverables would remain consistent, or would they be changed over time as well? I know many of these things you’ve given quite considered thought to, and it would be a real opportunity for people who are listening to the debate, again, to gain greater insight as to why the GPS approach was favoured in order to set out the strategic aspirations of the Government and how it will achieve its housing priorities and investment.

There is a small but germane clause—part of clause 24(2)—which reads, “The GPS may include any other matters the Ministers consider relevant.” Now, we have covered some of those issues. It could be in relation to climate change and the impact on communities. But, again, to assure the committee around some of the thinking that underpins that particular clause, is this a wide scope of matter or is this more germane to housing-specific issues or what? I think that would be a very helpful set of questions for the Minister to respond to. But, finally, for the innovation to insert the GPS into this legislation, Minister Twyford, you can take all the credit.

I move, That the question be now put.

💬 Hon Members: Madam Chair?

The debate needs to be relevant. It needs to be fresh. It needs to ask the Minister genuine questions if further calls are being taken.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I’m very pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this. I’ve been caught up in meetings throughout this debate; so I’m delighted that it is still going, and it gives me the opportunity to ask some questions of the Minister very relevant to this particular part of the bill.

I am in particular interested in clause 22, around the Government policy statement (GPS), because I come at it from a Wairarapa perspective. In 1999, the National Government of the time sold every single State house in the Wairarapa region—every single one—and ever since then there has not been a Housing New Zealand presence. So I am intrigued as to the requirement, under clause 22, that Ministers may review the GPS at any time. They must review the GPS at intervals that are no more than three years apart. And I would like to know why that is three years and not longer. What provisions within this—

Tim van de Molen: We’ve already had this question. Didn’t the member listen to the answer?

💬 Dan Bidois: The Minister’s already answered this part.

—specifically around GPS can we possibly be able to include to prevent a future National Government from selling social houses. Now, they may make noises, but we don’t have to look very far to see an example of a National Government selling State houses.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): I think what they’re actually doing is drawing attention to the comment I made, prior to taking your call, that the contribution now, at a quarter to nine, should be fresh and relevant, and it hasn’t been so far.

Oh, really? Well, I’m shocked by that.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): I understand—[Interruption] Excuse me. I understand that you did miss the debate, which will make it harder for you to know what has already been debated, but I can advise you that that point has been. So let’s try something new.

OK, OK. Thank you to colleagues across the House for talking about the selling of Wairarapa State houses previously. I appreciate that! The specific mention here in clause 24—I ask the Minister around the overall direction and priorities. Could he please take the opportunity to outline how that provision—the overall direction and priorities—will prevent the sale of State houses in the future? Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to reply to a question that the Hon Nanaia Mahuta raised in relation to clause 24(1)(e), which states that the Government policy statement (GPS) on housing and urban development must include, among other things, “the Government’s expectations in relation to Māori interests, partnering with Māori, and protections for Māori interests”. I think it’s worth spelling that out a little bit. It is one of these issues that will be dealt with in a lot more detail in the companion bill, which we hope to table in the House soon, which will include all the special powers that Kāinga Ora will have to undertake large-scale development projects.

One of the central insights of the last two years of work that we’ve done in this area is that not only are tangata whenua affected more dramatically by the housing crisis than almost any other population group—and we see that in very high rates of Māori homelessness. There’s a very significant percentage of Māori who are on the public housing waiting list, and we know that Māori households experience disproportionately poor quality, cold, damp housing and overcrowding. So Māori are really at the sharp of the housing crisis, and we know that Māori organisations, including iwi organisations, are stepping up to be part of the solution. So that’s why it’s very important that the GPS must include not only the Government’s expectations in relation to Māori interests and the way that the housing and urban development system will respond to those interests but actually how we will partner with Māori organisations.

Right across the housing spectrum, if you look at the way that Te Puea Marae has been at the forefront of some of the community responses to homelessness; if you look at He Korowai Trust and the work of Ricky Houghton in the Far North—very entrepreneurial and innovative approaches to addressing the housing needs of some of our most vulnerable people. There are a number of Māori organisations who are delivering the Housing First programme, and I’m thinking in particular in Auckland of the Ngāti Whātua affiliated organisation, and Kāhui Tū Kaha, and also in the building of papakāinga and other forms of affordable housing. We see Ngā Pōtiki in the Bay of Plenty, and I think all without exception of the larger iwi groups from Ngāi Tahu and Waikato-Tainui are involved in substantial housing land development and housing projects.

So Māori are absolutely part of the solution and are offering some of the most exciting and creative opportunities for Government and the private sector to partner with them. There are a number of Māori organisations who are delivering KiwiBuild developments, and the Unitec site in Auckland, at Mount Albert, is being developed by the Crown in partnership with the three rōpū who make up the Tāmaki iwi consortium. So that’s why that clause is there, and that I think signifies some of the most exciting opportunities that we’ve got.

I want to just answer the question Kieran McAnulty raised before, about the three years—why the three-year cycle for the GPS—and the reason is that it’s worked very well with the transport Government policy statement, and that is to have the Government policy statement synchronised with the parliamentary term so that, when a new Government comes in, it’s got the opportunity to refresh the Government policy statement, put its own stamp on it, bring all that kind of creative energy to bear on the policy making, and then set out its plan for the next three years.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Look, I’m just going to take another very quick call, first and foremost in relation—today is, actually, the anniversary of the first ever State house, built by the Labour Government in 1937. So I think it’s really wonderful that we’re talking about the Kāinga Ora—Homes and Communities Bill today, and I have a very simple question to ask the Minister in the chair. As he knows, I am on the Environment Committee, and, at the moment, we are working through the Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Bill. So I’m making reference to the purpose and content of the Government policy statement, which is clause 24(1)(f), and the Minister will see that we have inserted that additional component in there, which is, “how the Government expects Kāinga Ora—Homes and Communities to recognise the need to mitigate and adapt to the effects of climate change.”

Now, the Minister has spoken about this before, and questions have been asked. But I would be particularly interested to know whether there is an intention around the Climate Change Commission to be consulted on this matter when the Government policy statement is being planned, or how the Minister would go about, essentially, looking at how climate change is built into the Government policy statement. In my own community of Tauranga, of course, we are living in a coastal area. We have communities that are ready to be built on which may, in fact, be in tsunami areas, or may be affected by salinisation, and the rise of the water table, and I’d be particularly interested to know from the Minister how that adaptation and mitigation will be worked in.

We are the Environment Committee, and so we did put this additional part into the bill, and it links, absolutely, with the multi-decade outlook. So it’s going to be, I guess, quite a difficult task to put, and ensure that that mitigation and adaptation is future-focused and looking forward, and putting it into the Government policy statement. So that’s the substance of my very short call, but if the Minister could—

Tim van de Molen: Sit down, then.

Oh, I might just stay standing up, just for that then—ha, ha! It’s not very often that I’m asked to sit down, and I actually listen. However, this—

Tim van de Molen: I believe that!

Ha, ha! Good man; I’m pleased you believe that. However, so just to, finally, summarise: so if the Minister could address that particular component, and, I guess, as well, in terms of the one other question I have is around wellbeing. If the term “wellbeing”—which is being built until the Government policy statement—shifts and changes over time, how will the Government policy statement be adapted to build that in to our new and developing sense of what wellbeing might be? So thank you, Minister.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Let me just respond briefly to Angie Warren-Clark’s question about the climate change commitments that the Environment Committee helpfully inserted into the bill, and the member asked, really, how those obligations will be incorporated into the Government policy statement, and into the work of Kāinga Ora. So let me give some examples. So in relation to climate change mitigation, I think one of the most important ways is that Kāinga Ora, and all of its partners—local government, and all of the other institutions that are part of the housing and urban development system—first need to take into account changing land use patterns in response to the effects of climate change. So for instance, inundation, being exposed to rising water tables, and so, not building in places that are vulnerable to rising sea levels, whether it’s at the beach, or in areas where there is a lot of water inundation. That’s the first thing.

The second is that, obviously, one of the obligations will be to do everything we can to reduce carbon emissions, and it’s my expectation that we will, in working closely with the independent climate commission, end up with some kind of carbon budget for the built environment. Now, you can see in transport, which is responsible for about 20 percent of our emissions, some of the things that we can do to reduce emissions. So the electrification of the vehicle fleet, new sources of energy like hydrogen for heavy vehicles. All of those things are going to make a big difference. But in urban development there are some other things we can do. So reducing car dependency is one of the main things. So everything that we can do to build communities, for instance, with more urban intensification, where people are in walkable neighbourhoods, and have access to high-quality rapid transit, and other forms of public transport, walking, and cycling. That will go a long way towards reducing the carbon emissions that are a direct result of the shape of our towns and cities.

The third thing that is one of the main ways that an organisation like Kāinga Ora can make a difference is through the quality of the buildings, and our homes in New Zealand still—notwithstanding the advances that have been made over the last 20 years in insulation, and heating, and the whole move towards healthy homes, which we’ve reflected in the healthy homes guarantee that we legislated to make sure that all rental properties meet a certain standard, and that they are warm and dry. We still have a long way to go, and so, the use of better building materials, better design, actually, can make our homes more thermally efficient.

Actually, a really great example in recent times of where that’s been done is the Hobsonville Point development, developed by HLC, where they used Government procurement, procuring several thousand new homes, and building a brand new suburb; they set standards for thermal efficiency in all those homes.

💬 Angie Warren-Clark: Brilliant.

Yeah, so all of those new homes are the equivalent of Homestar 6 or more. There’s a requirement for greywater recycling. They’re all double glazed. They are highly thermally efficient, and that means not only are the people living in them happier and healthier, but those homes are cheaper to run and they reduce our carbon emissions. Now, when you play out those kinds of gains across thousands and thousands of new homes that are being built, that adds up to pretty significant reduction in emissions.