Smith NickHon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): For the past four years this Parliament has been subject to a campaign that says that it is foreign buyers that have been at the core of New Zealand's housing challenges. We had the disgraceful Chinese-sounding names debacle. That made me truly ashamed to be a New Zealander. Michael Wood: Many more things you should be ashamed of.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I hear a member who's interjecting like Michael Wood who claims to stand on a platform of diversity who is more than happy to target his Chinese constituents for a bit of cheap politics. Now let's go back to the claim—Michael Wood: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I take exception to the remark that was just made—that I target my Chinese constituents for political gain—and I would ask that that remark be withdrawn. CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I'm going to take some advice on this. I think members are on very thin ice making those kinds of remarks—[Hon Dr Nick Smith stands] I'll just finish. There were—I didn't quite hear the comments but I just want to warn Opposition members as well. Making accusations around racism is not acceptable. I think we all should think carefully before we speak and I call back the Hon Dr Nick Smith. Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Mr Chair I still invite Mr Michael Wood to apologise to the Chinese community for the disgraceful campaign that was run by Labour members in which they claimed that 40 percent—Hon Carmel Sepuloni: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. You gave a very gracious ruling and warned the Opposition. He has continued to go down the track that you warned against and I take offence on behalf of my colleague. Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Speaking to the point of order Mr Chair you would have been in the House when I was subjected as the then Minister to the claims that were made by Labour at the time that 40 percent of house sales in Auckland were to Chinese—Hon Carmel Sepuloni: This is irrelevant. Hon Dr NICK SMITH: —ethnic people. Oh it's very relevant and this is the core—CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! Everyone settle down OK? A couple of things: points of order are taken in silence; speaking to points of order is also done in silence. The Chair is the sole judge of that. I'm listening carefully to everyone's contribution. I'm listening really carefully. I'm going to make a ruling. I think I've heard enough. I'm going to go back to the original point that I made and members need to be very careful. Dr Nick Smith I do ask—you have stated now twice what you have said. I think that is enough and I'd like you to come back to this part of the bill. Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The origin of this part of the bill was a campaign by Mr Phil Twyford in which he claimed that 40 percent of house sales were to people with Chinese-sounding names and my colleague would note the offence that was taken at the time very widely by the Chinese community to that campaign. My concern is the vast gulf between those claims by Labour—the now Government—and the reality because we collected very detailed data. For every single transaction for the last four years we know the tax residency of every one of those house buyers. I want to make the comparison between the facts and Labour's claim because I'm here to base it on evidence-based decision-making. Now what the evidence—and I'll read the exact numbers. In the course of 200000 land sales in the last year 2672 were purchased by people of overseas residence and 2658 were sold by people of overseas residence. So in the entire year of 200000 land sales there was a shift in overseas ownership of a net 14 houses. Now when members opposite described it as a tsunami—a tsunami—of Chinese I do not accept that the change of ownership of 14 houses in one year is anything like a tsunami. I will say it again: members opposite owe an apology to the Chinese community for that unwarranted attack on them. But it gets even more interesting when we ask the question in that reliable data as to how many of them there are and where they came from. Do you know what the largest group of overseas investment in property is? It's those bloody Australians! Is there anything in this bill that changes the investment in New Zealand property by Australians? Well I would love a member to describe—maybe the Chairman will—why it is OK for an Australian to speculate in New Zealand property—CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! Do not bring the Chair into the debate.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: What moral superiority does an Australian have in the New Zealand housing market over those that may be from the UK the United States Japan China or any other country?But here's the part that's got me truly gobsmacked. For the last two or three years Labour members have said that that data was a nonsense. I stood up in the House and would have answered at least 20 questions from Labour members saying the data that is prepared and collected by Land Information New Zealand was inaccurate. So I choked on my Kornies—I choked on my Kornies—when I heard a statement from Mr Twyford: The data is now reliable."—the same data is now reliable and can be relied upon. That is truly shameful and yet that is the foundation of the law change that we are being asked to make in classifying all residential land as sensitive. [Member trips and falls off step] My colleague Amy Adams—Hon Member: Are you all right Barbara?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: She's fine. Farming type—very tough! My colleague Amy Adams made the point that if you are serious about improving New Zealand's housing supply issues then the key thing is to get more houses built. So if you look at the last five years—Darroch Ball: That's a bit rich.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well let's have the numbers. Let's have the numbers. The number of houses being built when Labour left Government was 13000 per year and do you know that number grew by 15 percent per year every single year for the last six years of our Government. It grew from 13000 a year to 31000 a year. And here's the remarkable part: there is not a period in New Zealand history when the growth in new home construction has been as long or as strong. There's never been a period like those five years. And members opposite—I simply ask the member from New Zealand First well when was it stronger?Mark Patterson: What was the population growth?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Wow! I'm fascinated that the member from New Zealand First asked a cheeky question—Rt Hon David Carter: What's his name?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Look sorry I don't know the member's name. He hasn't contributed much. I've been on at him to take a call. But here's the question I put to him: New Zealand First campaigned on reducing New Zealand's net immigration to 10000. They've been in Government for nine months. What have they done?Stuart Smith: Nothing.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Absolutely nothing. I would ask the member who's interjected: what have you done? The silence is absolutely deafening. This is a member who will poke his head up but when it comes to actually doing what he told electors he would do he has not delivered on that. So we have had a very strong record of new construction in housing. That growth is continuing—200000 homes are projected to be built over the next six years—and here's the tragedy: the provisions in this bill over the past six months have raised significant uncertainty to the point where actually it has slowed the level of investment in new home construction. The very thing that will make the material difference for Kiwi families whether they're renting or they're buying has been compromised by the provisions that are in this part. The Government has failed in that its policy has been about bumper stickers and not about the substantive policy that will make a material difference for New Zealanders.The very last point I make is that if this were the answer Australia wouldn't have the same housing issues that we have. The reality is that this is not the answer to the housing challenges that New Zealand faces."