Logie JanJAN LOGIE (Green): I would like to just start my contribution on new Part 3 by referencing some of the comments I heard made this week in the homelessness inquiry because it is quite relevant this part of the bill. I will start with the comment from Shamubeel Eaqub talking about how homeownership died in 1991 and renting sucks. The housing market is fundamentally broken and Housing New Zealand has not built enough homes." I think that pretty much sums up the drive for this new part. It is actually taking some sound economic advice and using that as an input to drive good public policy-making. I would also like to just go back to the context of this new part of the bill sitting within this piece of legislation and reference back to the first piece of special housing accord legislation which also went through under urgency 3 years ago. We were told that this whole model that the Government is providing us is to bring about affordable housing and increase the number of houses that were being built. What we heard at that time was that it was necessary to be done under urgency because it showed the Government cared and that it needed to happen because if you looked at Auckland at that time in 2013 the average house price was about $735000 and God forbid there was an expectation or a possibility that the average house price might rise to $1 million within 3 to 4 years. So that legislation was needed under urgency to prevent that possibility. Well how ironic is it that on the same day that house prices in Auckland exceeded $1 million the Government is coming back with the same legislation to extend that same provision that has so comprehensively failed. I am very pleased to be supporting new Part 3 of this bill which actually has some hope of succeeding—some hope of actually delivering New Zealanders affordable housing and getting those houses built. As Shamubeel Eaqub was saying Housing New Zealand has not built enough homes so actually we know what part of the solution is and it is for Housing New Zealand to build more homes. Mr Seymour can quibble over the details of who is going to be there with the hammer. Actually nobody has ever thought that we were going to be sending Nick Smith out with a hammer. That is not what Mr Twyford is suggesting with this amendment though actually it would be more constructive than what Nick Smith is doing here. This amendment is actually taking responsibility and I do think this conversation is really important. If I am honest—and I am not speaking for anyone else in my party when the arguments are coming up about how we have complained that there is not enough information for us to make our decisions on the previous parts yet we are presenting this without people having the possibility of consulting—I personally do not have faith that the Government is going to allow this to pass. But I am absolutely committed to reflecting the views we heard from the homelessness inquiry and giving New Zealand the chance to consider the alternative and to consider that actually yes this could be possible. We could have some responsible public policy intervention in housing. I do want to speak to another aspect of this new part briefly around the ability for these homes to be safe and warm and dry. That is also one of the problems we have with the free-market approach that the Government is using with the State housing accord as opposed to this more direct model where actually we can ensure that all of those houses are warm and dry as well as affordable improving people's health improving their quality of life and providing returns to the Government in terms of educational improvements better work productivity savings to the health budget all round—"