Mackey Moana: Infrastructure Bill — First Reading 
Mackey Moana: Infrastructure Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:656;Page:5849] 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I am happy to stand and take a call in the debate on the first reading of the Infrastructure Bill. I was not expecting to take a call because I do not think anyone was expecting that a bill on infrastructure would repeal affordable housing legislation. But indeed here we are and I am happy to put my comments on the record. 
First of all I endorse the comments made by the previous Labour speakers on this debate: we support any investment in infrastructure. When we look around the globe currently at what various Governments are doing to put stimulus packages in place to lift their countries out of recession earlier we see that they are in fact doing far far more than this country. 
Hon David Parker 
: South of Christchurch. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: My colleague David Parker raises the very real concern that there is nothing in this legislation for any community south of Christchurch. That is a real concern because those communities are also suffering from the impacts of this recession and deserve to have the same kind of treatment as every other community in this country. But in saying that I also say that Labour supports any investment in infrastructure. 
My colleague Clare Curran will comment more on the broadband issue. That issue is a real concern particularly for provincial communities. When Labour was in Government we had a clear strategy for rural broadband. I sincerely hope that the New Zealand Regional Fibre Group is able to get this contract. I believe that they are best placed to use existing infrastructure far more efficiently and far more cheaply to deliver a service that will better benefit people in provincial regions. I certainly hope that is the path that the Minister for Infrastructure will take if we ever see an announcement from him on this issue. 
I want to talk particularly about Part 4. It repeals the Affordable Housing: Enabling Territorial Authorities Act which was put in place by the previous Government. I was the chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee that considered this legislation. I want to say that I am pleased that the clauses on the restrictive covenants are being carried through. I think that is extremely important. At the select committee many cases were raised with us where such covenants were being used to exclude certain groups of people in society from housing areas. That is unacceptable to this Parliament and I am pleased that part will remain. 
I want to know why the Government feels it is so necessary to repeal this Act. I have had contact with a number of groups who have sent me emails asking whether it is true that this has happened and that they were not told about this issue which affects them. They never would have thought to look in the Infrastructure Bill for that issue if they had not been tipped off that it was there. I think that is an important point to raise; hopefully these people will have some input at select committee. I note that this bill will go to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee which is appropriate. The problem is that the issues around housing are normally dealt with by the Social Services Committee. It is a shame that that committee is not able to fully consider these issues and also that the Local Government and Environment Committee cannot given that this bill also affects territorial authorities. 
When the last Government passed the Affordable Housing: Enabling Territorial Authorities Act National members said that it was just another layer of bureaucracy and something else that territorial authorities had to do. The fact is that territorial authorities did not have to do it. This was just one tool in a tool box that we put forward containing a number of affordable housing initiatives. There was significant legal uncertainty around whether territorial authorities could require developers to include affordable housing or social housing as part of the development mix or to put money and land aside so that the affordable housing could be built elsewhere. This Act provided that certainty. It said that yes people were able to do it and if they were going to do it then this was the process to take. 
This is not an unusual kind of arrangement. North America uses this arrangement extensively. Where a large development takes place territorial authorities will require a number of different things; it will vary across the states. They might require that the infrastructure—such as the roads the lighting the sewerage the fibre for the broadband and all that kind of thing—be provided by the developer. If the developer is doing a commercial development such as a large shopping mall the territorial authorities might require the developer to build housing close by for the people who are going to work in the mall or to provide transport for them. Labour did not think up this arrangement out of thin air; it works very very well overseas. 
My disappointment with this part of the bill is that if the Government had taken the time to seriously look at the Act and think about whether it could make some changes we would have been absolutely open to that—to looking at whether we could make it work better or be more accessible. A lot of the Act was taken from the Queenstown experience of course. It is not right to simply repeal it as the local authorities were not required to use it at all; it was there to use at their discretion. 
I think it is important to mention that one cannot address the issue of affordable housing in isolation from the territorial authorities. Anyone who thinks that affordable housing can be done just by the Government and that if we just keep the territorial authorities out of everything it will work is dreaming. Territorial authorities are a really important part of the solution. This Act which is to be repealed simply provided them with the legal certainties to carry that arrangement out if they wanted to now or in the future. When a big developer comes in and decides to do a big development they could have said to them that they want 5 percent of it to be affordable housing or if they did not want it in that area they could say that they want land put aside somewhere else. Why should they not be able to do that? Why should other ratepayers always have to pay for the cost of all this infrastructure? They are not able to get access to affordable housing—they are locked out of the housing market—so they are renting. They are paying higher and higher rents—the rates are going up for their landlord and some of that is being passed on to them—or they are in a house and they would like to move to another house but they cannot afford it. They are ratepayers. Why should they have to foot the bill for absolutely everything for a developer who comes along and makes an awful lot of money from a new development? Why is it not OK to say that in some situations we may want to get 5 percent affordable housing or we may want the bulk of the infrastructure paid for by the developer? I think it is the right of the territorial authority to make that decision based on what is best for their ratepayers and what is best for their district. That is what this Act does. 
It is interesting that there has been so little movement on affordable housing from this Government. The fact is I think it was relying on the recession to see housing prices drop so significantly that the issue of affordable housing would go off the boil. The fact is that housing prices have not dropped. Working families are still locked out of the housing market. The Minister of Housing Phil Heatley stood up and took credit for every single Labour policy that was introduced under the last Government. He has not come up with any new ideas and he is repealing one now. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: Like former housing Ministers. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: That is right. Excellent former housing Ministers attacked head-on the issue of affordable housing. They said that we would never have only one solution; we would have to have a mix of solutions which is what we had. We had the Welcome Home Loan scheme we had shared equity and we had this legislation enabling territorial authorities. We had a number of initiatives. We were putting affordable housing into the mix at Hobsonville and we were looking at it in Tamaki as well. We were attacking this issue head-on. The fact is that the recession has not made housing more affordable for most New Zealanders. In fact they are losing their jobs their salaries have stalled and housing prices have not dropped so they can offset that. 
The Minister of Housing’s No. 1 promise for affordable housing was tax cuts. Well they are out the window and he still will not answer the question: how do significant tax cuts for the wealthiest people in New Zealand help low and middle income New Zealanders get into housing? The answer is that they do not. He then said in the House last week that he was responsible for the lowering of interest rates. I wish he would tell us how he did it and then maybe we could put that in legislation. The fact is that this Government has not tackled the issue of affordable housing. I think the Government is just hoping that if it does not talk about it it might go away. We welcome increases to Labour’s very good Welcome Home Loan policy. We think that is really good. 
The other issue is that the Housing Innovation Fund which received an increase in this year’s Budget—we acknowledge that—is no longer available to territorial authorities for upgrades on their social housing. That means that some territorial authorities might get to a point where they have to consider whether they can even keep that housing and whether they might sell it given that the choice is to either upgrade it or sell it off like they have in Whakatane. What did the Whakatane District Council say in when it gave a reason? The council’s reason for selling off the housing was that the Government told them it was no longer a core activity and it not something that it should be focusing on. 
I come back to my point that we cannot address affordable housing without bringing territorial authorities into the mix. I would welcome the next speaker answering that question. Thank you.