Smith NickHon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Building and Housing): I am pleased to make a contribution and to put to Parliament why Part 2 of this bill is needed if this House is serious about growing the supply of housing in a city like Auckland and I think there is broad acceptance that it is needed. I think it is firstly important to explain how minor these amendments are in the context of the Housing Act. I want to take members through what the Housing Act currently says. If we refer to the current Housing Act it says in section 2(1) that State housing purposes means the erection acquisition or holding of dwellings and ancillary commercial buildings by the Crown under this Act for disposal by way of sale lease or tenancy;". In other words the current Housing Act in setting up housing development schemes makes it absolutely plain that those housing developments are for the purpose of sale. I then want to draw members' attention to the current Housing Act. Section 15 says that "any State housing land and any buildings or chattels held for State housing purposes may be disposed of by way of sale lease or tenancy" and it then sets out the process for housing developments on such Crown land.Since 1955 when this Act was passed Governments of both National and Labour persuasions have done housing developments in all sorts of corners of New Zealand. Governments of both persuasions have done housing developments and then for a later purpose have sold those houses. For instance even under the previous Government—despite some of the protestations—you had schemes that involved tenants being able to buy those homes that were built under those provisions of the Government. That is if a house was built on some State land in your own constituency in Rimutaka your previous Government allowed the tenant to be able to buy that house. Everybody has been going on since 1955 on that basis. These issues have come into extra focus because our Government has a policy that says it makes no sense for Government agencies to have large blocks of public land sitting around vacant when there is such a high housing need. If you take a site like Hobsonville we are going great guns. We have built over a thousand houses. We have got a scheme to build 3000 homes in Auckland and that is providing for those houses to be onsold. Hon Annette King: How many affordable?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Twenty percent. If you take an example such as Weymouth I think every member of this Committee will be hugely proud of that very first special housing area—an area of former public land owned by Child Youth and Family a block of land that had stayed vacant for 20 years while house prices had doubled. We are getting on and have built 150 houses there—close to resolution. The question as we have ramped up that Crown land programme is whether there is consistency between the Housing Act where Parliament very specifically said those houses could be sold and the generic provision in the Public Works Act that provides for offer back to the former owner. The question is whether the last Government when it sold houses to its tenants should not have been able to sell those houses to tenants but should have actually had to offer them to whoever may have been the previous landowner. When the Government built those houses in Hobsonville should the Government have not been able to sell those houses on the open market but offer them to the previous owner? I will tell you what the significance is. The significance of this programme is this: if I take a typical block of land such as we have got under the Crown land programme where you have got a $10 million block of land the Government is partnering with a private sector player and entering into contracts as we speak for those private sector players to invest as much as three or four times that amount of money to convert that $10 million worth of land into $40 million worth of sections. We are then requiring them to spend another $115 million to build houses on those properties. In that way we are going to be able to bring hundreds of houses to market and the difficulty is this: will people invest hundreds of millions of dollars in bringing that Crown land programme into practical houses for Kiwi families if there is any legal uncertainty? The answer is that of course they will not.So for members opposite to demand last week that there be a state of emergency on housing and then the next week to come along to Parliament and say "We oppose urgency. We just want this thing delayed for months and months."—the delay would mean that thousands of homes—Phil Twyford: So take it to select committee.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: —Mr Twyford—would not be built. There are two other points that I want to respond to. The first is that this bill specifically provides in amended section 15 set out in clause 10(3) that "Subsection (2) does not affect any right of first refusal that a person or group of persons has in relation to the land under any Treaty of Waitangi claims settlement or collective redress Act or deed." For the avoidance of doubt can I make absolutely plain that there is no intention to affect any other redress that a person or group of persons has in relation to any land under any Treaty claim settlement or any collective redress Act or deed. Can I say we have had an active discussion with the ACT Party about the Public Works Act. I think it would be fair to describe the ACT Party as having some concerns about this old Public Works Act—it has been around since 1981—and it has said actually the way in which private property rights are dealt with in that Act requires a wider review. The Government's position is yes we think the ACT Party does have a fair perspective. It is an old Act. It is an Act that significantly impacts on private property rights. But equally I will tell you where the ACT Party is different. The ACT Party does have a consistent philosophical position about the importance of property rights but what Mr Seymour actually understands is that you cannot create uncertainty around programmes that are under way right now. I tell you one thing that Mr Seymour understands very clearly. He understands that uncertainty is bad for business and bad for Government. So for that reason the Government has agreed to an amendment put forward that provides for 10 years—through to 15 September 2026—in which it is possible to have those changes to the Public Works Act. The last point I want to make to members of the Opposition who—Hon Annette King: Why don't you answer the questions Minister?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well Ms King—Hon Annette King: Just answer some questions.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I have answered the questions. What I simply get from members of the Opposition is that one moment they demand a state of emergency—do you know something about Phil Twyford? Phil Twyford always overstretches. He overstretches by blaming people with Chinese-sounding names. He overstretches in respect of demanding a state of emergency. And again he is embarrassing the Opposition today by overstretching because I actually think Opposition members know in their heart of hearts that this is a bill that will get houses built and rather than being a Wailing Wall of grief about people not being able to have houses people on this side of the House are prepared to support legislation that will get roofs over people's heads."