Twyford Phil: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTwyford Phil: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 31 July 2013. Volume:692;Page:12111. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]6.PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—TeAtatū)to theMinister of Housing: Does he stand by his statement on restricting non-residents from buying residential homes “I think the policy is a gimmick I don’t think it will work”?Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister of Housing):Yes I do. It is a gimmick. The first problem with the policy is that there is no evidence that overseas buyers are having any impact on house prices. The second problem is that any such policy would be notoriously difficult to implement. Forty percent of Aucklanders were not born in New Zealand and we are not going to have a situation where you have to show your passport before you are going to be able to buy a property. The third contradiction in the policy is exempting Australia. It is a great principle where you say that you are not going to have non-residents buying houses in New Zealand except for Australians who happen to be the largest group of overseas people buying houses in New Zealand!Phil Twyford: Does he think it would be a gimmick to promise 39000 houses in Auckland with no guarantee that even one of them will be affordable and no guarantee that most of them will not be snapped up by speculators?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: It would be if it was not backed up by a substantive accord with the Auckland Council and an agreement in work by officials in both Government and councils to implement it and if it was not backed up with a substantive bill before this Parliament that will free up land supply and enable new subdivisions to occur at a fast rate. In fact what you are seeing from this Government with both the social housing bill and the housing accords bill is more action on housing affordability in more than a decade.Phil Twyford: If he believes that increasing the supply of houses will increase affordability why does he refuse to accept that reducing demand by restricting offshore speculators and taxing their profits will also increase affordability?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: If it was such a great policy why is it that the price of housing in Sydney where they have that policy is over NZ$800000 per house? Why is it that in Melbourne where they have that policy housing affordability is a lot worse than in New Zealand? It was also interesting to note last week when I was in Australia meeting with housing Ministers and officials that they noted to me that their overseas policy was inherently difficult to implement and that they did not think it was having any effect either.Phil Twyford: Why did the Government give the Reserve Bank the power to implement loan-to-value ratios without exempting first-home buyers thus putting the interests of overseas speculators ahead of young New Zealanders when some overseas speculators can borrow 100 percent at 1 percent interest?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: On this side of the House we respect the independence of the Reserve Bank but I also find it really interesting—Phil Twyford: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question was why did the Government give the Reserve Bank the power to implement—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister heard the question I heard the question and now I would like the Minister to have the opportunity to answer the question.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: He asked about the Reserve Bank’s actions. The point I wanted to make is that this side of the House respects the independence of the Reserve Bank although the first mention I heard of alternative instruments—to putting up interest rates like loan-to-value ratios—was from David Parker on the Oppositionbenches who suggests the idea and then when the Reserve Bank Governor suggests we use it he opposes it. That just shows everything about the hypocrisy of members—Mr SPEAKER: Order!Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. [Interruption ]Mr SPEAKER: Order! This is a legitimate opportunity for the Hon Trevor Mallard to raise a point of order.Hon Trevor Mallard: Mr Speaker I did not rise immediately because I was sure that you would have intervened on the use of a word by that Minister that has been absolutely ruled out and that should be withdrawn and apologised for.Mr SPEAKER: I did not rise immediately because I was expecting the Hon Trevor Mallard to do it more quickly. [Interruption ] Order! The member will stand withdraw and apologise.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I withdraw and apologise.Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Any time you want me to sit there Mr Speaker I am happy to.Mr SPEAKER: There are many many occasions when I would be very happy if the member would spend more time sitting than standing.Phil Twyford: Does he agree with Bill English that private sector builders like Fletcher’s andStonewood Homes which will build Labour’s 100000 affordable starter homes build houses that “look like the back-end of Moscow”?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I do not take too seriously Labour’s policy of building 100000 homes at $300000 each when the average price of a section in Auckland today is $325000. So if we are going to make affordable houses—Phil Twyford: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: Order! I apologise to the Minister. We have a point of order from Phil Twyford.Phil Twyford: Mr Speaker I asked for a point of order.Mr SPEAKER: And I am giving the member a point of order.Phil Twyford: I do not understand why you are apologising for my point of order when you have not heard it.Mr SPEAKER: I am not apologising to the member; I am apologising to the Minister because his answer was interrupted. Now if the member has a point of order I will hear it. [Interruption ] Order! It is a point of order and it will be heard in silence.Phil Twyford: I specifically asked the Minister whether he agreed with the statement by Bill English. I did not ask for a dissertation on Labour’sKiwiBuild policy. [Interruption ]Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption ] No I do not need any assistance. What I would appreciate from the member—I think he is raising a good point on this occasion—is that we could give Ministers the opportunity to address the question. The Minister had not been long addressing the question but he certainly had not addressed the question adequately at the time the member raised the point.Phil Twyford: Point of order—Mr SPEAKER: No no I am on my feet. If we get a continual process where before the Minister has an adequate opportunity to address the question we get an interruption from anybody questioning it then we are not going to get there. On this occasion the best way forward is for the member to repeat his question and I will be looking for the Minister to then address the question satisfactorily.Phil Twyford: Does he agree with Bill English that private sector builders like Fletcher’s andStonewood Homes which will be building Labour’s 100000 affordable starter homes build homes that “look like the back-end of Moscow”?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I have no confidence that those builders will be able to build each of those houses for the $300000 that Labour claims when the average section price in Auckland is currently $325000 so I do not care who the builder is. The policy is a nonsense. We must address the issue of land supply which is exactly what this Government is doing with the bill before the House and I cannot believe that Labour members opposite are opposing it.Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I just want to raise with you an issue with regard to your most recent ruling that Ministers should be given an opportunity to address a question before a point of order is raised interrupting—[Interruption ]Mr SPEAKER: Order! This is a point of order.Chris Hipkins: —and that is a very legitimate point. However when a Minister stands up and immediately launches into an attack on the Opposition rather than even suggesting that they might eventually get to answer the question I think it is legitimate for a member to interrupt them. Repeatedly we have had a situation where Dr Smith has launched immediately into attacking the questioner or the Opposition without actually giving any indication that he is eventually going to get to answer the question.Hon Gerry Brownlee: The Hon Dr Nick Smith’s answer was perfectly adequate given that Mr Twyford had stated that the Labour Party appears to know already that Fletcher Construction andStonewood Homes are going to be able to build—Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is not a point of order. The point that Chris Hipkins raises is worthy of consideration. There will be occasions when the Minister is clearly not even attempting to address the question and on that occasion I do not have any objection with the questioner raising it immediately. But I think we need to be careful that we are not premature on many occasions and interrupt when I perceive that a Minister is attempting to address the question. Often it takes a bit of an introduction before the Minister gets to the stage of adequately addressing the question but I accept the point that the member is making.Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Point of order—Hon Member: Here’s the “Comb-over Kid”.Hon Clayton Cosgrove: What was that “blunderbuss”?Mr SPEAKER: Order!Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I seek leave to table Government announcements where foreign purchasers at the initial float of Mighty River Power shares were restricted to 30 percent total purchase which the Government has never described as xenophobic.Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that particular document. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.