Heatley Phil: Affordable Housing: Enabling Territorial Authorities Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Heatley Phil: Affordable Housing: Enabling Territorial Authorities Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:649;Page:18475] 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 Madam Chairperson I am intrigued that as the Chairperson of the Committee of the whole House you required members not to talk about solutions for affordable housing— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Please do not trifle with my ruling or discuss it. 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: I am hoping that in the debate on Part 2 we can canvass solutions regarding affordable housing given that that is to all intents and purposes what the Affordable Housing: Enabling Territorial Authorities Bill is hoping to achieve. I will move through clauses 40 41 and 42 and will address those particular issues with that backdrop—without actually mentioning any solutions. 
I will first convey my concern to the Committee that although clause 40 does not deal with affordable solutions to housing it does make a couple of amendments to the Building Act. In fact it makes three amendments. I have to say that three is too few. I do not know any builder who does not want amendments to the Building Act. Builders across the country will be delighted to see three amendments here. They have another 333 that they would like to introduce and I am a bit disappointed that the Minister of Housing in improving the lot of first-home buyers has not introduced more amendments to the Building Act. It is the Building Act along with the Resource Management Act and a bunch of other Acts that the Government has forced through this Parliament—while ignoring necessary changes—that has driven up house prices for first-home buyers. Clause 40 was a great opportunity to make amendments to the Building Act which is making life very difficult for builders right across the country. 
A builder who has done the hours and has been in the trade for 20 to 25 years cannot move a window 1 foot to the right—30 centimetres for those of us born after the change to the metric system—without trotting off to the local district council with a bunch of plans under his or her arm to explain why it has to be done even though the window does not change the structural strength of the wall. A builder has to down tools go to the council with a bunch of plans submit them wait 5 days for a decision— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Please could you take a seat. I will read to you Speakers’ ruling 44/1 on the question of relevancy: “Because a matter is incidentally mentioned”—namely the name of the bill that is being amended—“in the course of a debate … does not justify discussion on the …” Building Act. 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. Clause 40 involves amendments to the Building Act and I am speaking about amendments to the Building Act. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: You are not speaking about the appropriate amendments to the Building Act—the ones in this bill. 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: Who judges what is appropriate? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: It is whether it is written in this bill. 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: I appreciate that members are not allowed to talk about affordable housing solutions in the debate on the Affordable Housing: Enabling Territorial Authorities Bill nor about Building Act amendments when the clause is about Building Act amendments. I will move on to clause 41 dealing with amendments to the Housing Corporation Act. 
I shall remind members of the Committee of clause 35 in Part 1 to which clause 41 “Amendments to the Housing Corporation Act 1974” in Part 2 directly relates. Clause 35 refers to covenants being made void. They are covenants across developments that would otherwise restrict social housing from being provided. For instance a builder with a development of 100 houses might put a covenant across the property to say that no Housing New Zealand Corporation houses may be built there and none of the houses may be sold to Housing New Zealand Corporation. Certainly National as we said earlier supported the intent of the legislation to make such covenants void but we did mention that there is no doubt that when Housing New Zealand Corporation purchases 100 houses in a subdivision of 200 houses that is of huge interest to the local community and it ought to be consulted on and considered. So although National supports the idea of voiding such covenants we do make that point. A case in point is the Hobsonville subdivision where 400 to 800 State houses are being built. The local community is very upset about that. There has been no consultation at all and it has caused a lot of angst in the local community. 
I now move to clause 42 which does not address issues to do with the Building Act and does not address issues to do with affordable housing solutions. It is well worth canvassing because it deals with amendments to the Local Government Act 2002. This clause does not deal with development levies. Development levies are charges to builders and developers that in some cases are spread across property developments throughout the country driving up the cost of properties and driving up the cost to first-home buyers of building houses because in the end they pay the development levy through the added cost on to their homes. That is not what this clause is about. This clause is not about the Local Government Act driving up the costs of first-home buyers. This clause is about an amendment to section 102(5) of the Local Government Act by adding the following paragraph which is a fascinating paragraph indeed: “(c) an affordable housing policy under the Affordable Housing: Enabling Territorial Authorities Act 2007.” It has no mention of development levies or anything like that; there is just that mention of that amendment.