O'Rourke Denis: Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeO'Rourke Denis: Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 03 September 2013. Volume:693;Page:13165. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): When the Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Bill was originally introduced in the House we in New Zealand First thought: “Thank goodness! Finally the Government is moving on the housing crisis.” We thought it was high time that it did because it had waited at least 5 years doing absolutely nothing while a housing crisis developed in New Zealand. So we thought: “Thank goodness! Something is going to be done.” Then as we began to study the bill and understand it we realised that actually not very much was going to be done at all especially for low-income people seeking their first homes and especially in terms of addressing the issue of affordability. So now New Zealand First is regretfully going to vote against the bill.We are not going to now vote against the bill because we are opposed to the concept of housing accords with local government—we welcome that; we think it is appropriate that central government and local government should work together on addressing the housing crisis in New Zealand—and neither are we voting against it because we areagainst the concept of special housing areas as we think that that is also a good concept and is one good way of moving forward and making sure that adequate land is made available for housing in New Zealand. Those are not the reasons we are voting against it. The reason is that this Government is actually not doing nearly enough about the housing crisis that has developed.It is not doing nearly enough about affordability. I heard what the Minister of Housing just said about affordability but I am one of those New Zealanders who are totally unconvinced by what the Minister says and who see what this Government is failing to do in fact about the problem of affordability of housing in New Zealand. We do not accept that simply flooding the market with land available for housing will actually solve anything very much at all especially affordability and especially making it possible for first-home owners to achieve their first home in this country which is now something that is so far beyond possibility for those people that you could call it virtually impossible.There are additional problems. Planning instruments are to be compromised by this legislation and local democracy will be sidelined as well because of some of the particular provisions in the bill.I want to specifically refer to PhilTwyford’s Supplementary Order Papers 342 343 and 344. Supplementary Order Paper 342 has a provision that provides that “No plan change or variation to a proposed plan” would be able to be permitted that is “inconsistent with the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Act 2008.” In fact it is a much wider issue than that. It is a wider issue of consistency with plan changes altogether. This highlights how the bill would compromise district and city planning instruments and set local democracy aside. The bill is a pretty blunt instrument when you look at it. It is something of a panic measure. It is a measure that is unbalanced and in favour of a quick-fix attempt for a problem that has been years in the making and we are very concerned that some of the good work done in planning by many local authorities will in fact be compromised by the bill.Moving on to Supplementary Order Paper 343 New Zealand First will support that as well. It would seek to “remove the override provisions in the Bill …”. We in New Zealand First believe that that is appropriate. The amendment requires that there must be a housing accord if an order for a special housing area is to be made. We in New Zealand First believe that the Government should negotiate and negotiate and negotiate until in fact it reaches an agreement and there should not be the ability to set that process aside and to simply impose an accord on a local district or city. That is not appropriate and that should not be happening.We do not believe that if the provision for the override were not there that would unduly constrain the Government. That is simply because local governments are just as keen as central government is to reach agreement on special housing areas and to make sure that in fact those local councils can act to ensure through the negotiating process that their good work and planning processes are not compromised and set aside. The problem with that override provision is just this: the Government if it is just tired of the process or does not believe in the sincerity of the local government or simply does not agree with it can just brush it aside and impose a special housing area or an accord of its own—or rather do what it likes effectively—and that is simply not appropriate in the circumstances. That is the reason why we will support Supplementary Order Paper 343.Turning to Supplementary Order Paper 344 it would enable housing accords to require a minimum proportion of housing that is affordable. That as I have already said is a very important issue for New Zealand First. We think that provisions along these lines are very very much needed indeed. In fact we think that that is one of the mostimportant issues of all. You see the profit motive for developers causes them to favour large sections and large houses to make larger profits. I have looked around Christchurch with a friend looking for a smaller home on a smaller section. Do you think we could find one in all those subdivisions that are happening now around Christchurch? It is very very difficult indeed to find a smaller home on a smaller subdivision and that is a significant problem because those properties are very expensive—much too expensive for too many people especially first-home seekers.So if there is to be a Government lead in terms of special housing areas then the Government also needs to lead to make sure that people needing smaller homes on smaller sections are catered for. We do not believe that the current provisions of the bill and the current intentions of the Government are actually to address the needs of those people at all. We believe that there needs to be a good mix of smaller homes on smaller sections as a mandatory requirement of all developments taking place as a result of special housing areas under this bill. In that way we can make sure that at least some of the properties that will be made available will be more affordable and in that way we can indirectly start to address the issue of affordability.But affordability of course is a much wider issue than that. In fact we in New Zealand First think that the Government should be making assistance directly available to first-home seekers in terms of ways to assist them to find the deposit that they are now going to need—20 percent—for a first home. The Government is not doing that. That is a glaring omission and we think that that is something that it needs to do. Just fiddling with retirement savings—KiwiSaver—is not going to address that problem. We all know that. The Government seems to think it will; it will not. Much much more needs to be done.Governments of the past have done much more. I bought my first section many decades ago now admittedly with a homeownership account—a very good system for assisting people to save for their first home by giving tax refunds to help them to do that. That is the sort of thing that New Zealand First adopts as its policy approach and we would like to see the Government consider it as well.So for those reasons New Zealand First will be supporting PhilTwyford’s Supplementary Order Papers. But in the end with regret we will be voting against this bill.