Twyford Phil: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Twyford Phil: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 20 March 2013. Volume:688;Page:8697. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
6. 
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatu) 
 to the  
Minister of Housing 
: Why did he tell the House that even if the Auckland plan took effect in September new subdivisions would not be available until 2016-17 when the advice he tabled from Roger Blakely of Auckland Council shows that if the unitary plan takes effect in September new land would be available two years earlier? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister of Housing) 
: 
 Let me quote my exact words as recorded in  
Hansard  
last Tuesday: “Even if the Auckland plan … took effect in September it would not mean that new residential subdivisions would be dealt with on a … non-publicly notified basis.”—i.e. subdivisions would have to be notified. I did not say that they would not be available. 
Phil Twyford 
: So who is right: the Minister who says that the Auckland plan will not deliver greenfield land until 2017 or Roger Blakeley of Auckland Council who says that the council will have sections on the market by 2015? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The member seems to be missing the point in the difference between when sections and residential subdivisions are notified or not notified. If the plan takes effect in September as the Auckland Council suggests it would enable some new subdivisions to come on stream but they would need to be notified. That means a process of taking submissions and that means potential appeals to the Environment Court and that can take as long as 2 years. The point I was making—and I will make it to the member again—is that we need to get a point in Auckland where new land is available on a non-notified basis because I think as we all realise that is what is required to free up land supply and deal with the sorts of issues that have been the focus of the latest report from the IMF. 
Phil Twyford 
: If he does not want the metropolitan urban limit and he does not want the new Auckland Unitary Plan’s rural-urban boundary precisely where is the boundary he is proposing? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I had made plain that the metropolitan urban limit that currently exists within the Auckland Unitary Plan is a major barrier to housing affordability. That point has been made by the IMF along with concern about interest rates going up for ordinary New Zealand families and businesses. I noted earlier questions from members of the Opposition who are concerned about the balance of payments. Well why do they not support this Government in its attempts to free up land rather than defending a metropolitan urban limit that has failed in Auckland? 
Phil Twyford 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I asked where the member’s proposed boundary is for Auckland. He has not answered the question and he has been talking for quite a long time. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I invite the member to have a look at the transcript at the end of the day and see that the Minister made a very genuine attempt to address the question. 
Phil Twyford 
: He did not address the question of where his boundary is. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: He did address the question. The member has further supplementary questions if he wants to use them. 
Phil Twyford 
: What is he saying: that he wants no rural-urban boundary which will mean uncontrolled sprawl from Pukekohe to Warkworth; and why will he not come clean with Aucklanders and put up or shut up? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The Government’s position is very clear. We see the answer to Auckland’s housing challenges as a mix of both greenfield developments and brownfield developments. I am going to be meeting next Monday with the Mayor and Deputy Mayor of Auckland as this Government constructively works to deal with the housing affordability challenges in Auckland because we like members opposite are concerned about housing being more affordable for New Zealand families. 
Phil Twyford 
: How can he ask the Auckland Council to meet the Government’s demands when those demands are completely undefined and he has steadfastly refused to tell the people of Auckland where he wants the rural-urban boundary to be? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The Government has made plain that we see having only 2000 sections currently available in Auckland as not enough. This Government has made plain that in Auckland’s own plans about the number of—[ 
Interruption 
] I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member asks a question. He immediately sits down and carries on with a barrage when I am sensibly trying to answer the very question the member raises. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister is entitled to finish his answer and there will be silence from this side of the House while that happens. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The Government’s position is this: 2000 current sections are not nearly enough. The Auckland Unitary Plan sets down that the point of both subdivisions being ready and future land to be zoned is less than half what Auckland’s own council’s targets say it should be. So in terms of what the Government is wanting the Government is wanting the Auckland Council to free up sufficient land to take the pressure off the housing market and to make housing affordable for Aucklanders. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I did not take this point of order because I was scared of being thrown out but I invite you to reconsider the ruling that you just made—that is that the Government can interject but the Opposition cannot. That is exactly what you said. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not my ruling at all. After yesterday in the House there were calls to my office complaining about the level of noise. There have been interjections particularly from the back of the House there throughout the Hon Dr Nick Smith’s attempt to answer that question. The level of noise makes it very difficult for me to hear both the questions on many occasions and certainly the answers. I am asking all members to respect this House so that we can have an intelligent question time where we can listen to the questions and the answers. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. If that is what you meant then that could have been what you should have said. You said members on the left— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The member is now relitigating my answer. The noise at that stage was coming from this side of the House. I meant what I said. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I agree with you that it has become very noisy. I would argue the key problem is that the decision or the ruling of Speaker Smith that a straight question gets a straight answer is no longer being upheld under your new Speakership. That is creating disorder. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! That is now questioning the competence and the bias of the Speaker. That is very serious. I am attempting to elicit sensible answers for members but on many occasions members are wanting the answer designed to their satisfaction. That is not what question time is. The question must be addressed but it will not necessarily mean that the question at all times will be answered to the satisfaction of the member asking the questions. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want to agree with what Dr Norman said but to make it clear that no one—and I do not think Dr Norman did—attributed bias to you. What he indicated what was that there is a different set of rulings and they are quite different. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I accept there are certainly different styles. From the moment you have a different Speaker you will have a different style.