edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Delahunty CatherineCATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green): I would like to take a particularly short call on the title following on from my colleague Iain Lees-Galloway's dissertation. I have just got some better options for the title OK. They are the Especially Complicated and Notably Useless Housing Bill" the "Elephant is Still in the Room (But At Least the Elephant Has Got a Room) Bill" the "Affordable Housing for Affordable People (Everyone Else Get a Cardboard Box) Bill" the "Nail in the National Government Coffin Bill" the "Halfway House to Nowhere Very Much Bill" and the "We Have Abandoned You (Love Doesn't Live Here Any More) Bill".Hon Member: I like that one.CATHERINE DELAHUNTY: I like that one too because it is slightly melodramatic but it is deeply true. As the Guardian said the whole world is watching. The National Government has abandoned the people that it is supposed to represent. Love does not live here any more. I would also like just before I finish this to refer to the moral tale in our Pākehā history of the three little pigs. Remember the pig that built its house out of straw and then the wolf came along? Well that is what the Government is offering in this. It is offering a straw man or a straw house or a straw whatever. The big bad wolf of the collapse of the market will come along. The big bad wolf has already blown away the life of many people in terms of having a home. They already got no straw no bricks no whatever else—no timber. This bill does not provide anything except straw. It is not good enough. The title needs to be changed. Pick whichever title you would like but I just have to say to the people out there who are watching that although the National Government has abandoned you love does live here on one side of this House. We will keep working for affordable housing. Thank you very much. This might be a frivolous contribution but my heart has been in this process along with everyone else's. Thank you to everyone who put up a constructive solution to actually make this piece of legislation worth having. The fact that the Government members voted it all down—let that be on their own consciences. "The whole world is watching" notes the Guardian. Good night."
Smith NickHon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Building and Housing): I understand we are debating the title and the commencement but as a matter of courtesy to the member Chris Hipkins I want to make two crisp points in respect of his question. His question was: has the law changed? The answer is yes it did. In the Housing Amendment Act that was passed by this Parliament in February of this year the very same provisions that are affected in this bill were in the Social Housing Reform (Transaction Mandate) Bill which went to the Social Services Committee. I would draw his attention to the minority view from his own colleagues who chose to make absolutely no mention of the change or of any concern about it. So it is ironic for members to be giving all this bluster and concern about a provision in respect of the Housing Act and its interaction with the Public Works Act when it was of absolutely no concern to Labour members earlier in the year. The second point I would like to make is that I would like to table a very specific email that was provided in respect of the development of this bill and I will quote it word for word from Treasury's regulatory impact statement unit which is required to report on all bills. It says this: The minor avoidance of doubt provision in the Housing Act"—the one that the member has just claimed is so significant and is of such moment; let us hear what it says—"does not need a RIS. It is minor and does not change any rights." Let me say that again. This is the independent Treasury unit and it simply goes on and says: "It is simply a clarification of existing legislative intent." I am going to read the words again: "It is minor and does not change any rights." [Interruption] The members ask a fair question: "Well why is it important that there is clarity in the law?". I will tell you why that is important. Right now the Government is negotiating significant contracts for tens of millions of dollars to develop housing on blocks of Crown land across Auckland. I think there is broad agreement that that is actually a good thing to do. And in the negotiation of those contracts involving tens of millions of dollars of private investment—and remember these are blocks of land the Government owns and so we are able to put definitive requirements about both social housing and affordable housing. Because we own them we can say that you must do these things. It is absolutely important for those investors that they have the certainty without any uncertainty at all over someone potentially challenging them. I actually think that if members reflect on that—if you were a major housing company you would want absolute certainty in that area. That is the sole reason that those provisions are in this bill and it is why actually if this Parliament is committed to getting more houses built in Auckland at pace that certainty is required."
Davidson MaramaMARAMA DAVIDSON (Green): First I would like to apologise to all the members whom I have interrupted while jumping in to try to get my bit. I am really passionate about this—that is all—that is all it is. But I genuinely apologise for interrupting other members' speeches. I do not think that is fair.Here is a tool a really good part a really good change to the bill that we are debating which will take head-on some of the most brutal impacts that are happening to New Zealanders at the moment. I am going to go through each of its parts. I have got a slight change to one of the parts of this amendment but here is a tool that offers several different solutions that will address the immediate problem of the housing crisis and that we often talk about. We often talk about using all the tools that focus on addressing the housing crisis but I want to say that what this amendment focuses on are the tools particularly for the group of New Zealanders who are disproportionately bearing the cruel cruel brunt of this Government's failure to protect them. Those are the priority tools that are outlined in this Part 8.So it is actually not just about using all the tools; it is actually about prioritising the tools at the bottom end—that is what this part is about. The income-related rent places provision is important because at the moment people are choosing between rent food power and anything else is a bonus. So this is vital to helping improve our communities. There is a part here new section 98B set out in clause 13 in new Part 8A Joint Ministers must ensure sufficient places for emergency housing". If we really want to be serious as I keep saying we have to look at the bottom end at the groups who are bearing the most negative and the most harmful impacts of this Government's failure. So I really emphasise that ensuring that the number of funded places available in emergency housing each year is not less than 8000 is actually vital at the moment. We have heard that the provisions at the moment for emergency housing are woefully insufficient.I come to new section 98C set out in clause 13 "Plan to end homelessness". I would actually just propose a slight addition before subsection (1) of section 98C. I would put something in before there. I commend the stunning work of my colleague Phil Twyford on this but my amendment would be firstly to ask whether the Government members can even say the words "end homelessness". Has anyone heard them? Has anyone actually heard them say that? I am looking around. Have we actually heard this Government vocalise or write the words "end homelessness"?Phil Twyford: They've got it all under control.MARAMA DAVIDSON: Have they? No. so I would even propose that in this part of this bill that we are debating—new section 98C "Plan to end homeless"—that we stick a bit in just to make sure we know that they understand what we are asking: end homelessness. So it was not a long contribution that I felt I needed to make; just a clear one. Thank you."
Bennett DavidDAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): I move That the question be now put.
Roche DeniseDENISE ROCHE (Green): Tēnā koe Mr Chair. I have been looking at the amendments and the Green Party position is that we fully endorse and support this amendment. It would make a significant difference to the legislation if it was to be passed in the Committee tonight. The first part of this amendment relates to income-related rents. I think that if we look at what the average incomes are at the moment it makes sense that we should be looking at rents that people can afford. We believe that shelter is a basic human right and that the Government has the responsibility to provide that shelter. If the market does not provide then those people need shelter and the market is broken. It is certainly not delivering shelter to what 32000 people who are currently homeless—32000 people many of whom are children who are living in their cars.We have just wound up the cross-party inquiry into homelessness. I sat on that inquiry in Tauranga and heard the gut-wrenching testimonies from good people—good people—trying to earn a living and provide for their families. But if we look at income and income-related rents what we find is that the minimum wage is $15.25 per hour. That comes to $610 for a 40-hour week. In Auckland the average rent for a three-bedroom house is around about $510 a week leaving—what is that—$100 for a family to exist on for a week. If we put some controls on the speculation in housing and housing becoming a commodity which is being used to make the wealthy wealthier and we see it as a basic human right with responsibility on the State to provide housing at a cost that normal working families can afford then that is what we should be doing and that is what this amendment does.Currently there are around about 300000 people who are earning close to that minimum wage which is $15.25 an hour—300000 people. That per annum is just under $32000 a year. If you consider the cost of rental accommodation in Auckland which is becoming increasingly beyond the capacity and beyond the affordability of normal working families and if you also consider that it is way beyond the price range for normal families on the minimum hourly rate to actually be able to afford to buy any of these homes given that in Auckland it is now what $1 million on average to buy a normal place to live—when you consider all that—then we do need to consider that this Parliament should be taking steps to provide housing.The amendment also talks about emergency housing and this is something that we really should be looking at. We cannot be continuing on with this situation where we are putting families in motels and where families with small children are ending up in boarding house rooms just for shelter. That is a shameful shameful way to be. I want to thank the member Phil Twyford for putting forward this amendment which we will be supporting wholeheartedly. There is a lot more that we could be doing to give families and hard-working ordinary New Zealanders the ability to have shelter—that basic human right. This is the amendment that will deliver it and I think we should be supporting it.
Turei MetiriaMETIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green): I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I am just seeking clarification.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Simply for clarification—a point of order Metiria Turei.METIRIA TUREI: Can I clarify then that you are not ruling out members of Parliament in this Committee stage debate describing the impacts? As part of the analysis of the legislation we are considering are you ruling out us describing the impact of this legislation on the constituents whom we represent in this House?The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): The impacts of the legislation should be well described within the first second and third readings. The purpose of this Committee stage is to analyse and debate the strict terms of what each part does. Members do not have leniency to spend several minutes in a 5 minute call putting in context which has been done several times over the course of this debate or they run the risk of being called for repetition and being sat down. This is about analysis. The Committee stage is about analysis of the parts that we are debating at any one time. I hope that is clear enough.
Turei MetiriaMETIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green): I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. As I understand it this whole bill began with a clear statement that the debate was to be wide ranging. I also would put to you that as a wide-ranging debate and one where we have not had the opportunity to hear submissions from New Zealanders—from the public—we actually have an obligation to our constituents to talk about the impacts on them of legislation that we are considering. So telling those stories is critical to explaining how legislation will impact on the people we are here to represent. Yes there are some narrow provisions that we are debating but I would strongly suggest that you reconsider your view in light of the fact that we have an obligation as representatives in this House to talk about the effects of legislation on our constituency and this is the only opportunity that we have to do so.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Ruling on that the point is that you have got an obligation to address the part that is under debate at the moment. That does not give a licence to any speaker to then retell the context over and over and over and over again. Actually that leads to repetition and that is what the Chair is responsible for maintaining a control on. That is not something that is going to be tolerated. As members will well know there have been several hours of debate in respect of this bill and the context has been put many many times during the course of that debate. The ability to be able to have a wide-ranging debate is during the first second and third readings. This is the Committee stage where we analyse the parts that are before the Committee and at this time we are debating a very narrow and well-constructed Supplementary Order Paper that is around this particular part. The wide-ranging debate relates to the readings. The Committee stage relates to the analysis of the parts that are before the Committee. There has been quite a bit of leniency displayed so far for members to be able to do that. I am giving you an indication as I have on previous tours of duty in respect of this particular bill that we are going to keep it tight.
SpeechThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): I just want to take a moment if members could be seated to remind the Committee what we are doing here. We have had an amendment put up. It is quite narrow in what it says. It is very specific about not taking a dividend from Housing New Zealand Corporation for the Government and applying it back into the purchase of homes. We do not need big long stories or tales of woe. The context has been given by the initial speaker Metiria Turei who was the proponent of the amendment. People need to be either asking the Minister for Building and Housing questions or they need to be doing technical analysis in respect of what this proposal does by way of amendment. Bear in mind that this is an amendment so the questions you can ask the Minister are fairly limited. I expect that the debate on this will be very narrow and it should be because it is a very narrow and very easy to understand amendment.
Barclay Todd; Mallard TrevorTODD BARCLAY (National—Clutha-Southland): I move That the question be now put.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): The member might have got it if he had asked for it properly.
Mallard TrevorThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): I will call Grant Robertson but before I do so I just want to indicate to the Committee that there are more amendments on the Table. There were two amendments which sought to insert a new Part 7. I am ruling that Metiria Turei's which was the first will be new Part 7 and I think Mr Twyford's one which was the other one will be new Part 8.
Woodhouse MichaelHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister of Immigration): I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Thank you for your considered judgment. I certainly do not intend to labour this point but I will ask for one point of clarification which I did not raise earlier. In an omnibus bill by and large more than one bill is being amended and a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) by and large is designed to amend the bill being debated. What we now appear to have is a ruling that because two bills are being debated and amended in a single piece of legislation any other piece of legislation could now be proposed for amendment because we now have the Income Tax Act the Overseas Investment Act and the Resource Management Act all effectively within scope here notwithstanding that they have nothing to do with the bill being debated. I just want to clarify that the point now is that it is open slather on SOPs. [Interruption] The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): The members who are choosing this particular time to give us the pearls of their wisdom have chosen to do so during the taking of a point of order and they should not do that. I hear the member's point of order. I do not agree for a moment that it is open slather. Matters will have to be on point. Unfortunately—or fortunately depending on which side of the Chamber you sit—the terms of this bill were very broad. If somebody wants to seek a clarification or seek a further ruling then that is open to them. I have given my ruling and I am prepared to stand by that. I accept that there are other heads in the game. If the member wishes to take that and seek a review of my ruling then I am quite happy for that to happen.
SpeechThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Members I am going to give a ruling in respect of the point of order raised by the Hon Mike Woodhouse. I accept that the reason behind this particular legislation which is seeking to amend the Overseas Investment Act 2005 seems to have apparently two distinct philosophical reasons as to why it is there. One of them is to limit the ownership of land in New Zealand by foreign buyers; the other is that it would have an effect on affordability by removing foreign buyers from the market. The test as to whether or not it is in scope is the debating point as to whether or not if this part was to be accepted and to go on and be in the bill it could have a dampening effect or the effect of making more affordable houses available in the market. So by reason of that having taken and listened to the points of order and having taken advice from the Clerk's Office I am going to rule it in scope.
Ngaro AlfredALFRED NGARO (National): I move That the question be now put.
Naylor Jono; Tisch LindsayJONO NAYLOR (National): I move That the question be now put.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I am going to take the mover of the amendment—Phil Twyford.
Seymour DavidDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. To help inform the Committee in the debate I seek leave to table figures I referred to in my earlier contribution building permits residential building consents from—The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): No. My question is: is this in the public domain? Where are these figures from?DAVID SEYMOUR: It was assembled by the Parliamentary Library for my office on 13 July this year.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): From the Parliamentary Library—specifically for you?DAVID SEYMOUR: Yes.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Oh well I will put the leave; the Committee can decide. Leave is sought for that purpose to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Brownlee Gerry; Mallard TrevorHon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): In the spirit of generosity I seek leave for there to be question time at 2 p.m. today notwithstanding urgency and for there to be a third reading of the Housing Legislation Amendment Bill to be taken from 4 p.m. today and at its conclusion the House resume with Government orders of the day.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Is there any objection to that suggestion? There is objection. [Interruption] The Committee does not agree.
Brownlee GerryHon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister supporting Greater Christchurch Regeneration): I seek leave to present some statistical information which I will shortly acquire from the Hon Dr Nick Smith.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Can I ask the member whether it is material that is otherwise publicly available?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Well it will very soon be available on the Hansard record and I would advise anybody interested to read it there.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): No no. Can the member just answer the question—Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: That would be publicly available.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): It is publicly available. Then I am not going to put the leave to the Committee based on the precedents from my predecessors in the Chair. Has the Minister finished?Hon Dr Nick Smith: Yes.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Well I think on that basis the next speaker had better be the Hon David Parker.
Smith StuartSTUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): I move That the question be now put.
Scott AlastairALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa): I move That the question be now put.
Mitchell MarkMARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): I move That the question be now put.
Tisch LindsayThe CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): So to the Government I am not asking for an answer but does that explain what the rationale is? Tim Macindoe: Yes it's clear to me.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Do other parties understand what is being mooted here?Hon Members: Yes.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Is the New Zealand First Party happy? Fletcher Tabuteau: We understand yes.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): You understand yes. So knowing now what Labour is intending to do if the Government wishes to proceed with that at 5 minutes to 1 we will need to report progress and then you would then seek leave and the House would then decide whether to proceed with what you have suggested. Are we all clear on that? OK.
Hipkins ChrisCHRIS HIPKINS (Senior Whip—Labour): Yes. When I put the leave my expectation was that we would simply continue all the way through the urgency and then begin the regular sitting session whenever that may be. However I understand that there are issues around ministerial availability for example for question time at 2 o'clock. Therefore if the course of action that you have suggested is acceptable to the Government it is certainly one that we would support which is that we would have question time at 2 o'clock then move back to complete urgency for however long that is required and then we would move on to Government orders of the day as listed on the Order Paper. We would be very comfortable with that course of action.
SpeechThe CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I am just going to comment on Chris Hipkins' application for leave—and I have sought advice. The Committee cannot give leave for what is proposed and I want you to explain to me in a minute what your intention is. Only the House can do that. So the process would be that at 12.55 the Minister and I would call to report progress we would go back into the House leave could then be sought and it would be up to members to decide whether they would accept the leave. That is the process. So my questions are: by leave are you seeking that there would be question time and then we would resume urgency for the remaining stages in Committee followed by the third reading and then we would resume Government orders of the day as per the Order Paper which would be published at that time? Is that what your intention is?
Hipkins Chris; Tisch LindsayCHRIS HIPKINS (Senior Whip—Labour): I seek leave for the House to begin its Wednesday sitting session at the conclusion of the urgency.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Leave is sought for that purpose.Tim Macindoe: Can I seek clarification from him. The Wednesday session—the entire programme as per the Order Paper?Chris Hipkins: Yes.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): There is no Order Paper for Wednesday. We are in urgency. An Order Paper is only published once urgency finishes and then it becomes the new order of the day. With regard to the leave that you are seeking can you just clarify that because there is no order of the day other than the urgency that we are in at the moment.CHRIS HIPKINS (Senior Whip—Labour): The Order Paper of course is normally published at the conclusion of the urgency. You are quite right. If the urgency continues beyond 2 o'clock the National members have indicated their concern that the House would not be able to sit for the remainder of a regular programmed Wednesday session. I am seeking leave for that to be able to happen.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I am just seeking some advice. I thank the member for the points he raised when seeking leave. I have not struck this before so I am going to seek some guidance. Once I have some guidance as to how it could be facilitated—I hear what you are saying—at that stage I would be happy once I have some guidance as to whether that can be facilitated that then possibly you could seek leave again. At this stage I am unsure. I want to know in my own mind. I understand how it currently works but I know how you are trying to facilitate something and I am happy to get advice on that.
SpeechThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): No. [Interruption] Order! The member might need some education but the whole Committee does not need to give it to him. It is on each question so it is four calls on each part except for the Minister in the chair who has unrestricted calls. Normally at the beginning of a debate we run a couple at a time. If members are clearly irrelevant in their first call then we drop down. Generally we do drop down so there should not be too much on reflection.
Seymour DavidDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I just seek your guidance. I understand that under the Standing Orders in these Committee debates each member is entitled to four calls. Phil Twyford has just taken his fifth. Are you going to be lenient in this debate?
SpeechThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Dealing with the second point of order it is an area that I am not unfamiliar with and although I will take responsibility for my ruling it is one that I have consulted on because of—I think it is fair to say—similar concerns about the departmental disclosure statement. The departmental disclosure statement is not an official document. It has not been formally tabled and therefore some of the normal responsibilities with regard to privilege and the responsibilities of Ministers do not apply to it. Therefore the matter that the member raised is a matter for debate—and I expect some intense debate—but it is not a matter of privilege and not the responsibility of the Chair to sort out. We now move to debate on Part 2.
Robertson GrantGRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I have an additional point of order that relates to this document which is the content of the departmental disclosure statement that is on the Table. This is the only document on the Table for us that gives any information about Part 2 from a departmental point of view and I want to raise through you Mr Chair my concern about that document. In Part Four" of that document as for all bills a significant legislative features section is required. In that section in 4.1 the question is asked: "Does this Bill contain any provisions that could result in the compulsory acquisition of private property?". It then also goes on to ask whether or not the bill creates or amends a decision-making power to make a determination about a person's rights obligations or interests. Both of those questions are answered as "No" in the departmental disclosure statement. I would venture to suggest that that is plainly untrue particularly in the last part that I mentioned about the creating or amending of a decision-making power to make a determination about a person's rights obligations or interests protected or recognised by law. It is quite clear that that is what Part 2 does and I believe that we have a departmental disclosure statement on the Table of the House that is in fact false. In the absence of a regulatory impact statement I believe we have a major difficulty in proceeding with this bill."
SpeechThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): I think I might have a solution. The Minister for Building and Housing did refer to a Treasury report which he said has been made public that indicates that this is the case. He has assured the Committee that there is a Treasury document which is available that indicates that it does not have a public policy impact and I think that the simplest thing would be if the Minister asked his officials to get a copy of that and get it on to the Table of the House as quickly as possible. That would save me having to make what might be a more difficult ruling.Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Can I just check—if it is publicly available then I think the Minister can point us to where it is publicly available.Hon Dr Nick Smith: With any bill that comes through the parliamentary process Treasury makes an assessment with its regulatory impact team just on every clause on every bill—you will not find a Treasury report on every provision. What Treasury has advised is that it deemed that there was no regulatory impact of these provisions and so they were not included in the regulatory impact statement on this bill.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): I do want to check with the Minister: was that advice received in writing?Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Well no I am sorry—[Interruption] If the member has it—Grant Robertson: Yes I do.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): That is fine.GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): Why do I not do this—I have actually got a second point of order. Why do I not do this—I seek leave of the Committee to table the Cabinet committee paper Housing Legislation Amendment Bill 2016—I am looking for a date which it does not seem to have on it. It has been released—it says 6 September I think but that cannot really be right—from the office of the Minister for Building and Housing to the Cabinet economic growth and infrastructure committee. It includes in paragraph 88 that Regulatory Impact Analysis requirements do not apply to some of the proposals in this paper and a Regulatory Impact Statement has not been prepared for these proposals. These proposals have no or only minor impacts on businesses individuals or not-for-profit entities."The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Is there any objection to that document being tabled? There appears to be none. It can be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House."
King AnnetteHon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour): Speaking to the point of order if that is the case why was it not written in a regulatory impact statement saying that it is not required because it has no public policy impact? That would have at least given some indication. But for there to be a blank on this and for us to rely on the Minister saying that that is what he was told—we have not received that advice. We have not got it written anywhere. So Minister—
Smith NickHon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Building and Housing): It is a longstanding practice and that is where provisions—and it occurred under previous Governments as well—are deemed to have no impact on public policy that they are minor legislative changes—[Interruption] The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! This is an important point. The very member who was interjecting was the one who asked me to rule on it. There is a precedent here that is quite important and I want to listen to the Minister.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Treasury is responsible for developing regulatory impact statements. Treasury as is noted in the Cabinet papers that have been publicly released said that there were no public policy implications of Part 2 of this bill. It was simply clarifying the way in which all public agencies have administered this law in the past and is consistent with many other provisions of law—and I could give numerous examples—where no regulatory impact statement was required as a consequence. So there is not one and that is because this simply clarifies what the existing law is.
King AnnettePart 2 Amendment to Housing Act 1955Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour): I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I went to the Table this morning to pick up the regulatory impact statement and there is no regulatory impact statement for Part 2 of this bill. I am asking through the Chair that the Minister table a regulatory impact statement on Part 2 for this Committee. We are being expected under urgency to debate a part of the bill in which there is no regulatory impact statement and that is not good enough for this Parliament. We have not got the guidance of what is to be prepared by the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment. Mr Chair I would like you to inquire why we have not got it when we will get it and whether we will get it before this debate concludes because we are debating blind other than from what we can glean ourselves on this part of the bill. It is not good enough when we are in urgency to expect a debate without that. The Minister for Building and Housing has just arrived and maybe the Minister can tell us when Part 2's regulatory impact statement will arrive in the Chamber.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): I just want to invite the member—sorry unless the Minister heard. Did you hear the point of order Minister?Hon Dr Nick Smith: I only heard the last part.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Because it is an important issue I will ask the member to repeat it.Hon ANNETTE KING: I have asked why and when the regulatory impact statement will arrive on the Table of the House for the Opposition on Part 2 of this bill which we are about to debate. It is not acceptable that we are being asked to debate a bill for which the Government has got information that is being withheld from the Opposition because we rely on regulatory impact statements. Minister when will it arrive? I wonder whether this debate can be held up until we receive it because that is what you would do in a proper democratic debate: you would provide the Opposition with all the information that they need. I would ask Mr Chair whether it is possible that we wait until it is tabled in this House.
Ross Jami-Lee; Mallard TrevorJAMI-LEE ROSS (Junior Whip—National): I move That the question be now put.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Yes I have looked at the list—we have now had 30 calls on this part we have been going for a significant period of time and it has been a while since I have heard anything new. Therefore I think members are in a position to make a decision as a Committee whether or not they are ready to have the vote on Part 1.
Ross Jami-Lee; Mallard TrevorJAMI-LEE ROSS (Junior Whip—National): I move That the question be now put.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): I will hear one more. I think we are getting near the end.
Hipkins ChrisTUESDAY 6 SEPTEMBER 2016(continued on Wednesday 7 September 2016)HOUSING LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILLIn CommitteeDebate resumed.Part 1 Amendments to Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Act 2013 (continued)CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka): The question that I was asking the Minister in the chair Nick Smith before we broke last night was: why are we here when the Government has known about this issue and could have resolved it long before now? Phil Goff the aspiring mayoral candidate in Auckland pointed this out to the Government back in May. It has taken now until September for it to bring something to the House to deal with the issue and it is now trying to rush it through all stages under urgency. But the question that I have for the Minister in the chair Paul Goldsmith relates to page 2 of the regulatory impact statement around the expansion of special housing areas (SHAs). It notes that the 213 SHAs in existence now are expected to yield over 70000 homes. Three-quarters of those will require around 10 percent of the homes within that development to be affordable. Let us do some crude maths on those numbers. Three-quarters of the 70000 homes is 52500. Ten percent of that—which is the component of those 70000 homes that will actually end up being affordable—is just over 5000. So basically what the Government is saying is that 5000 affordable houses is enough—5000 affordable houses is enough. Let us look at the population growth in Auckland. The population growth in Auckland has been well over 100000 since the last census—probably more than that. The age demographics in Auckland in the most recent census that I was able to get my fingers on right before this debate started are that there were in 2006 110000 Aucklanders between the ages of 20 and 35. That is the aspiring first-home buyer age bracket—110000. By the 2013 census it will be significantly more. I could not get those statistics right before I stood up to speak. Basically what the Government is saying is that 5000 new homes are enough for the over 100000 young aspiring first-home buyers to get their first step on the property ladder. It is simply not right. It is simply a fiction. So the question I have for the Government is: why is this it? Why is it coming to the House and wanting to extend SHAs? The Labour Party is voting in favour of this part of the bill because we support continuity here. We want to make sure that we do not end up with developments being stalled or anything like that. But where is the rest of the plan? Where is the plan that is actually going to result in enough affordable housing for all of the aspiring first-home buyers in Auckland who want to buy them because 5000 new affordable homes—which is basically what this bill amounts to—is not going to cut it. It is not going to be enough. So I would like to hear from the Minister why the Government thinks that is sufficient and what other work it is doing to meet the demographic projections in Auckland which will result in increasing numbers of first-home buyers being shut out of the housing market. I would also like the Minister to answer my first question which is: why now?
Tuesday 6 September 2016 - Volume 716
Housing Legislation Amendment Bill — Second Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Housing Legislation Amendment Bill be now read a second time.Ayes 61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 60New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2.Bill read a second time.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Housing Legislation Amendment Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 60New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2.Bill read a first time.
Housing Legislation Amendment Bill — First Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That urgency be accorded.Ayes 63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 58New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.Motion agreed to.
10. Building and Construction Industry Auckland—GrowthKANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) to the Minister for Building and HousingBuilding and Construction Industry Auckland—Growth10. KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) to the Minister for Building and Housing: Can he confirm reports that building activity in Auckland grew by 32 percent in the last year to $6.9 billion and how does this compare historically in inflation-adjusted terms with previous highs in construction?Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Building and Housing): Yes. Statistics New Zealand reported that annual building activity in Auckland grew by 32 percent in the year to July and is now at the highest level ever. This is the fifth straight year of growth. Residential construction activity in Auckland has been growing at 25 percent compound since 2012 and activity is now more than three times that when National came to Government. The current $6.9 billion per year compares with $3.8 billion at the last peak back in 2004. In inflation-adjusted terms the current level of activity is 43 percent higher—43 percent higher—than the highest level in the last 25 years.Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi: How does the current boom in building activity compare with that in 2004?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The first difference I noted is that it is 40 percent higher in real-value terms. The second difference in today's building boom is much broader. It is not just residential activity; it includes record levels of commercial industrial and public infrastructure buildings like schools and hospitals. The third difference is that the number of dwellings built in 2004 was boosted by 5000 apartments many of which were as small as 30 square metres and in the next year were banned. [Interruption] The final difference even if I use the numbers in 1974 or the numbers in 2004 is that it was only a boom for a year or two. We have had 5 straight years of growth of over 25 percent and are projected to achieve over 13000 homes per year in the next 3 years.Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi: What proportion of new building consents were in special housing areas in each of the last 3 years and what impact would it have had on growth if they had not existed? Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The number of building consents in special housing areas made up 6 percent of consents in 2013 9 percent in 2014 and 14 percent in the last year. This growing pipeline reflects the time it takes from an area being zoned residential to getting the resource consents getting the infrastructure built and then getting the houses consented. The Auckland Council projects that over the next 10 years 50 percent or 45000 homes will be in those special housing areas.
8. Schools—Communities of LearningSTUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura) to the Minister of EducationSchools—Communities of Learning8. STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura) to the Minister of Education: What recent announcements has she made regarding Communities of Learning?Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education): Tēnā koe Mr Speaker. I was pleased to announce this morning that more than half of New Zealand schools are now working together in 148 communities of learning (COL). This means that to date more than 1260 schools and 18 early learning services have now formed communities of learning supporting more than 410000 kids. Twenty-six COLs have set their education achievement challenges and 30 new community of learning leaders have now been appointed. In addition almost 400 teachers have been appointed to new roles within their communities. I want to acknowledge all the schools and early learning services that have committed to work together to lift the achievement of all their students.Stuart Smith: How do communities of learning support achievement for our young people?Hon HEKIA PARATA: Research and the direct experience of parents show that within schools the quality of teaching has the biggest influence on whether students will be successful. The communities of learning resourced through the Government's $359 million Investing in Educational Success initiative received additional resources to enable teachers and principals to systematically share their expertise to raise all student achievement.
6. Homelessness—Government ResponseJAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime MinisterHomelessness—Government Response6. JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all of his Government's policies?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes.James Shaw: Does he still feel that his Government's policies are giving all New Zealanders a brighter future when even his own Minister for Social Housing yesterday admitted that homelessness had got worse on its watch? Rt Hon JOHN KEY: For the most part yes.James Shaw: What proportion of the 42000 people living in severe housing deprivation will be housed as a result of the $24.4 million package announced today?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The member would need to direct that question to the Minister for Social Housing. James Shaw: Is he honestly saying that on the day that the Government announced $24.4 million worth of expenditure he has no idea what the specific outcomes of that expenditure are going to be?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: What I am saying is that I do not wing things because if I do the member will put in a breach of privilege claim and if he wants an answer to a detailed question like that he should direct it to the appropriate Minister.James Shaw: Does he stand by all of his Government's policies when sociologist Kay Saville-Smith said at the homelessness inquiry yesterday that in the 30 years that she has worked in homelessness in New Zealand she has never seen a situation like this."?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I think she will take confidence then in the announcement made by Minister today.James Shaw: When does his Government believe that the number of people living on the streets and in cars and in garages will actually start to decrease?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I cannot give the member an exact date but with the work programme I have seen from the Minister I am confident that will be the case.James Shaw: Just to clarify is he really saying that he cannot tell New Zealanders when his so-called comprehensive plan on housing will actually start to work?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: It has already started to work and that is witnessed by the fact that we are in the biggest construction boom that we have seen."
5. Road Safety—Safer Roads and RoadsidesBARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country) to the Minister of TransportRoad Safety—Safer Roads and Roadsides5. BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country) to the Minister of Transport: What update can he provide on the Government's recently announced $600 million Safer Roads and Roadsides Programme?Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Transport): Alongside the local member of Parliament Barbara Kuriger it was my pleasure recently to open the first of the Government's $600 million of Safer Roads and Roadsides projects. Changes to the high-risk section of State Highway 37 in Waitomo include side barriers to stop drivers running off the road improved signage and road markings and sections of the highway have been widened so that drivers who do lose control on corners have more time to recover. These improvements will make it a road more forgiving of human error helping to reduce the amount of crashes in the first place and limiting the severity of the impact if they do occur. Barbara Kuriger: What other projects can road users expect to see the Government deliver in Taranaki - King Country as part of the Government's $600 million Safer Roads and Roadsides programme?Hon SIMON BRIDGES: All up the Government is investing $23 million in six safety projects on rural State Highways 3 23 and 37 in the Taranaki - King Country area in an effort to reduce serious injury and fatal accidents. The range of improvements to some of the country's most dangerous stretches of rural road will be a mix of roadside and median barriers widening centre lines road widening improved signage road markings and rumble strips. All of these actions will reduce the risk of head-on and run-off-road crashes in Taranaki - King Country and are an important part of the Government's significant step up in road safety investment to reduce death and serious-injury crashes on New Zealand's rural roads.