King Annette: Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeKing Annette: Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 03 September 2013. Volume:693;Page:13172. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon ANNETTE KING (Labour—Rongotai): Just a short while ago the Hon Maryan Street gave the Minister of Housing Nick Smith a lesson in history and in honesty because the Minister in what he thinks was an attack on Labour really gave us more sound and fury than a substitute for real policy. You see some of us remember the Minister’s track record in the last Government and the Government we are in now. First of all he became the Minister for ACC. He said there was a crisis. He cut the funding for women who had been sexually abused so women did not get the services they needed.The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Come on.Hon ANNETTE KING: No Mr Chair.Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Those claims are incorrect but more important they are outside the scope of the part that we are discussing which is Part 1 of the Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Bill.Hon ANNETTE KING: Speaking to the point of order if you had been listening to the debate the first contribution—The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Order! I take exception to the way in which the member started that. I will give the member another opportunity.Hon ANNETTE KING: Earlier in the debate in the first call the Minister took he made a very wide-ranging contribution around the previous Labour Government’s rolein housing—what the previous Labour Government had done. It was way outside this bill. He was not called up on that and I am just setting the scene for this Minister having taken over housing in this Government.Hon Dr Nick Smith: My comments were directly in response to the claims of the very first speaker on the part and were entirely on housing. They were about the history of housing and why this bill was needed. In my contribution I never strayed away from the core issues and the purpose of Part 1.The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I understand what the member is attempting to do but this debate should be confined to issues of housing and in relation to this bill.Hon ANNETTE KING: Just speaking to that—The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): No I have made the ruling now.Hon ANNETTE KING: Normally you have about 30 seconds to be able to set the scene and I had 10 so I would just like to say—The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy):1 minute.Hon ANNETTE KING: —to the Minister that his history that he gave of housing and what had gone before was totally wrong and he misused facts. He gave up-to-date facts he said of the increase in the cost of housing under Labour and then forgot to mention that the cost of housing under National has gone up by 30 percent in Auckland alone. The cost of housing under National in Christchurch has gone up by 25 percent. I think it is important to get it on record that he was wrong about legislation. He said that no legislation had been passed by Labour when it was in Government. Maryan Street set out the legislation that had been passed including a clause that put aside 10 percent for affordable housing. He said that nothing had been done by Labour. In fact we brought in the Welcome Home Loan and funding for the Welcome Home Loan was cut in the Budget this year. We also brought in a shared equity scheme which has been cut by this National Government. So let us put on record that Labour in Government did a lot about housing because one of the things we understood was that there was a need for more housing in New Zealand.Now we have had 5 years of a National Government. Do you know that until very recently we were told over and over and over again that there was no crisis in housing? Bill English stood in this House and told New Zealand that there was no crisis in housing because of low interest rates which meant that New Zealanders were getting into affordable housing. He could not be further from the truth. There may well be low interest rates and they are certainly very beneficial for those who own their own homes who see their interest rates drop and their ability to pay off their houses faster but they have done nothing—absolutely nothing—for first home owners. The unfortunate thing about this bill is that it does nothing for first home owners wanting to buy an affordable house.I have no problem with the Minister’s housing accord. I do not have a problem with his special housing zones. They sound very sensible. But unfortunately they do not follow through and produce the outcome he wants. In fact he addresses only two factors out of the many factors that go to the heart of housing. He picks out the crisis in the supply of land. I ask the Minister how this bill releases land that is locked-up land owned by private developers. How does it make them put land out for affordable houses to be built on?Hon Dr Nick Smith: It removes the MUL.Hon ANNETTE KING: It does not make them do anything but hold on to it till they can get the best possible price. There is nothing in this bill for those banking land in the hope that they can get an even bigger price for their land to say: “Oh that sounds like a great idea. Let us get it at a cheaper price.” I mean the Minister is kidding New Zealanders by saying that this bill does that. That is not true.He also talks about planning regulations. Of course we need to streamline planning regulations but they are not going to build a single house unless you address some of the other factors which this Minister has failed to do. Those factors include the lack of scale in the building industry the lack of competition in the supply of building materials and the uncertain access to capital. Where in this bill and where in the Government’s policy does it help in terms of access to capital? After all for first-home buyers—for those who want to own their first home—they have just had the tightening of access to finance for them. They are going to have less access. It is not just the Opposition that is saying that. Our bankers and commentators those who are professionals are saying that there is less access for people who want to buy their own homes.Then the Minister said in his contribution that there were those who were saying that the bill is Draconian. Minister did you read what the Regulations Review Committee wrote? It is a committee of Parliament. This committee I believe has a majority of National members on it. That is unusual because usually there are equal numbers of members on the Regulations Review Committee but in this case it actually has a majority of National members on it. What did it say about this bill? It said first of all that there have been only 2 weeks for public submissions on this bill. That is a very short time in which to hear submissions on any bill. In addition the committee raised concerns about the bill containing excessive regulation-making powers which reflects a poor legislative approach. That is not any old person saying that it is Draconian; those are the words of the Regulations Review Committee. Is it credible or is it not? As I have pointed out the majority on this committee are National members.I say to the Minister that this bill is too little it is too late and it is self-serving for political gain because in 5 years if this Government really cared about affordable housing it would have done something about it. It would have brought in measures. To give him credit it was not until this Minister came in that we actually saw some action. As nice as Phil Heatley is he was unable to make any traction. However Minister your idea of affordable housing can be seen in Hobsonville. That was an area of Government land where you could have had the land at an affordable cost. In the programme for Hobsonville the housing accord would not even have been needed. You would not have had to have a special housing zone as you have in this bill. You could have built affordable housing. Do you know the size of the so-called affordable housing being built at Hobsonville? Sixty square metres up to 80 square metres—in other words a shoebox. In other words it is not affordable housing for a family. Does the Minister know how few houses are being built? It is a token gesture to affordable housing. He is shaking his head. Those are the facts Minister.You talk about land being released. If the Government wanted to release land in Auckland for example it could do that tomorrow. Who owns most of the land that could be used in Auckland? The Government. You do not need a housing accord. You do not need to have a special housing zone. You can release land. You can release Government land. And you can do it at an affordable cost. You could look at a range of ways of doing it.Hon Maurice Williamson: What about the Treaty of Waitangi?Hon ANNETTE KING: You could look at shared equity. You could look at whether the land is actually owned or not. Of course there are Treaty claims and we have that on many many occasions Mr Williamson. But we got through it at Hobsonville did we not? We have got through it in other areas. Look the truth is that you do not actually need an accord. You actually do not need a special housing zone if the Government seriously wants to address these issues.There have been 5 long years no progress has been made and nationally only 5 percent of new residential construction is affordable. This bill will not give us one more affordable home. So the only conclusion that you can make—to those who are listening—is that that is not the aim of this bill at all. That is not the aim. You can certainly build very big houses. You can build ones with en suites and many bedrooms and they cost between $800000 and $1 million. You can build those. People are buying them. But this bill will not provide a single affordable home to New Zealanders.Hon Dr Nick Smith: Of course it will.Hon ANNETTE KING: “Of course.” he says. Name how many. Tell us once and for all—Hon Dr Nick Smith: Thousands.Hon ANNETTE KING: —because this has been asked in this Parliament week after week. How many affordable homes will be built? I do not want to hear this “Thousands.” and “Heaps.” That is what the Minister is saying. This is our Minister paid the salary saying “Heaps.” and “Thousands.” Tell us how many houses that are affordable will be built—