Mackey Moana: Infrastructure Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Mackey Moana: Infrastructure Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 24 March 2010. Volume:661;Page:9802. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I am happy to stand and take a call in the second reading of the Infrastructure Bill. That contribution from the chair of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee David Bennett would have been a lot more sincere if he had not been grinning the whole way through it. He might want to review the tape and reflect on how serious he seemed when he grinned the whole way through that speech while he criticised my learned colleague Shane Jones for his contribution. He claimed that Shane Jones was there just to fill in time. I think it was a little bit of a case of the pot the kettle and the colour black which David Bennett might want to consider for his next foray into this House. 
I will focus on Part 4 of this legislation. It deals with the repeal of the Affordable Housing: Enabling Territorial Authorities Act which Labour introduced in our previous term of Government. The first thing I will say about that—and I would like the next National speaker to comment on this—is to ask why that particular move was included in the Infrastructure Bill. Why? It is not the natural place for people who are interested in that legislation to look to find that measure. When people saw that the Infrastructure Bill was before Parliament I doubt that it would have occurred to them that the affordable housing legislation was being repealed as part of the Infrastructure Bill. 
When we were going through the process of the select committee submissions where Labour and Green members raised concerns about some of the changes in that respect we had people contact us to say that they had no idea that it was happening because they did not know to look to the Infrastructure Bill for the repeal of legislation on affordable housing. I think the Government needs to answer that sincere question because it appears to me that it was hiding that change in this infrastructure legislation. It has no place in this legislation. Not only that but that particular part of the bill should have gone to either the Local Government and Environment Committee which heard and dealt with the original legislation or the Social Services Committee which deals with housing. The Transport and Industrial Relations Committee was not the proper forum for— 
David Bennett 
: Oh you were on the committee. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: I know I was on the committee I say to David. I was there. But a number of submitters look to the Local Government and Environment Committee and the Social Services Committee for issues pertaining to housing and to affordable housing. Even though the select committee made every effort—as limited as we were in that respect—to contact the submitters who submitted on the original legislation and to contact the people who we thought might be interested that does not change the fact that people contacted us after the fact who had missed out because they did not expect that that particular legislation would be dealt with in infrastructure legislation. 
The second thing I will deal with is the issue of restrictive covenants. The Associate Minister for Infrastructure said that the Government had kept the clause on restrictive covenants in this legislation. Well that is not strictly correct. The Government has kept a clause on restrictive covenants in this legislation but it has watered it down. The Government has watered it down quite significantly from the existing enacted clause on restrictive covenants. In the original legislation that Labour passed in our last year in Government was this wording: “A covenant over land is void if one of its purposes is to stop the provision of affordable housing or social housing on the land.” That is the gist of what the existing Act states. The Government has changed that to it having to be the principal purpose. 
When that bill originally went to the Local Government and Environment Committee—and I was the chair of that select committee when we dealt with it—we heard examples of restrictive covenants that had been used where the principal purpose was amenity value or the developers wanted all the houses to look the same. We were told that the actual purpose of that covenant was to stop disability access housing going in or it could be used to stop State housing or to stop affordable housing for example. But it is being done under the guise of being about all the houses looking the same or the amenity value. Unless we say that it is not OK for any purpose of a restrictive covenant to restrict affordable or social housing then we open up a huge loophole that makes this clause meaningless. All developers have to do is to hide their primary purpose for restricting affordable and social housing and claim it is for another reason and they can get away with it. That is what the original select committee tried to stop by saying that if any of the purposes were to stop affordable or social housing then that was not OK. 
The other thing that the Government has done is to remove the ban on restrictive covenants against affordable housing. For some reason the Government thinks that it is OK for a restrictive covenant to be used to ban affordable housing in a development. When we questioned the Housing New Zealand Corporation about that it said that it did not think that was likely to happen. Well the fact is that we had people come to the original select committee—and we may have had people come to this select committee if they had known that the repeal of that Act was in the Infrastructure Bill—who could have told us quite plainly that these restrictive covenants have been used to stop social housing or affordable housing. Sure it does not happen in a lot of cases but it should not happen at all. Now a green light has been given to any developer who wants to use restrictive covenants to stop affordable housing. 
Again I say that I would like the next National Party speaker to explain why it is OK to have restrictive covenants against affordable housing. Well those members have all gone very quiet now. They were very vocal not long ago. It is a genuine question because we are opening up an enormous loophole. Mr John Carter was on the select committee that heard the original legislation. I am sure that he remembers the discussions we had and I look forward very much to his contribution in this debate. 
We come back to Part 4 of this legislation. Although Labour will be supporting the Infrastructure Bill we will not be supporting Part 4 which contains the repeal of the Affordable Housing: Enabling Territorial Authorities Act. In his speech in the second reading of this legislation the Minister for Infrastructure said the reason that we had to get rid of that Act was because it was not working and it was increasing the cost of housing. Well this is not a compulsory measure. This was a tool that local territorial authorities could use if they wanted to or if they saw some value in it. It was legislation that clarified that legally they were able to do this. They were able to require developers to pay a levy contribution that could go towards affordable or social housing. It made it quite clear that they could not be taken to court because someone says that it is outside the law for them to do that. The fact is that if councils did not want to use this measure and thought that it might increase costs—even though at the select committee we were given no evidence of that happening whatsoever—then they do not need to use it. Claims that we have to get rid of this because it is increasing the cost of housing are simply not true and cannot be verified. 
The Labour Party accepts that there may be ways that the law could be written better. There may be changes that we could make to it that would make it more user-friendly or would allay some of the concerns that submitters had about the original legislation. Our point is that the legislation should be sent back to the select committee. The Government should have another look at it or change it if need be. Given that affordable housing is such an important issue in New Zealand and when many young people and older people are being locked out of the opportunity of ever owning their own home why would the Government simply get rid of the tool that could potentially be used? 
As with everything in affordable housing there is no one silver bullet. A range of different tools can be used. Depending on the economic environment and the housing environment at any one time certain tools will be more useful than others. Then the environment changes and another tool becomes more useful and the previous tool stops being used as much. The fact is that we have to have a range of tools available to deal with affordable housing and this was an important tool. By the way this tool is used extensively throughout the rest of the world. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Is National supporting it then? 
MOANA MACKEY 
: No National does not support it. Certainly it is not uncommon for State Governments or local authorities overseas to require developers for example to provide housing for workers if they are doing a big commercial development or provide public transport for workers or in housing developments to have a portion of money set aside for social or affordable housing. Those things happen extensively throughout the United States of America. 
I see that Mr Peachey is in the House. He is twitching because he thinks this is part of the socialist agenda. The Cold War goes on for Mr Peachey. The wall never came down in Allan Peachey’s world. He is sitting over there twitching wondering what “Reds under the bed” scheme I have going here. I can assure him that this is not such a scheme. It is about providing a range of tools that allow people to get into affording housing. This is a very important tool that we are losing here when sending it back to a select committee to do some serious work on it could have been the answer. It is very disappointing.