Twyford Phil: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTwyford Phil: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 01 July 2014. Volume:700;Page:19039. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]9.PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū)to the Minister of Housing: Does he stand by his statement that the rate of new house builds in Auckland “is the highest it has been in years and it shows the progress we are making” given the average number of building consents issued for new dwellings in the last six years is 4408 per year compared to an average of 9055 from 1999-2008?Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister of Housing):Yes because the 33 percent annual increase in new house builds in Auckland to May 2014 is the highest annual growth since records began in 1991. The member’s selective use of averages hides the fact that the collapse in Auckland’s new house build rate occurred between 2004 when there were 12000 houses built and 2008 when there were only 4000. It is significant to note that the worst quarterly Auckland house build rates since records began in 1991 were at the end of 2008. In December 2008 there were 233 building consents in Auckland. In May the latest figures there was 611—i.e. treble the number last month.Phil Twyford: Why is it if his special housing areas are so successful that not a single new house has been built in them that anyone is living in and why have Auckland consent numbers dropped to 611 in the last month including apartments down from 697 the month before and down on the same month last year when Labour built twice as many dwellings when we were in Government compared with his abysmal record?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The member is hiding the fact that there was a massive collapse in house build numbers from 12000 a year back to 4000 a year in Labour’s last 5 years in Government. His colleague the Labour spokesperson on finance was complaining in the House only last week that there was too big a growth in GDP and residential house builds that it was happening too fast and that there were too many new houses. I think that just illustrates the level of contradictions of members opposite.Jami-Lee Ross: What steps has the Government taken this week to further help housing supply in Auckland?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Yesterday Cabinet approved Orders in Council for 41 special housing areas. This process zones areas “residential” in 7 weeks in a process that previously took 7 years. Cabinet approved a greater area of new land for residential in 1 day than occurred in 9 years of the previous Labour Government. Let me say that again: yesterday Cabinet approved a greater area of residential land in Auckland in a single day than what members opposite approved in 9 years.Phil Twyford: Does he stand by his statement on becoming Minister of Housing “My ambition in housing is to make the dream of home ownership a reality for more New Zealanders.”; if so when will he acknowledge that he has completely failed with the Massey index yesterday showing that house prices and interest rates have gone up so much in the last year that affordability across New Zealand has declined by 7.6 percent even worse in Auckland with a decline of 9.1 percent and 10.6 percent in Canterbury—all since he became the Minister of Housing?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I am delighted that the member has raised the Massey surveys on housing affordability so that I can give the member the figures. Nationally housing affordability was worse in all centres in 2008. In Christchurch it has improved by 31 percent in Auckland it is 25 percent better than what it was in 2008 nationally it is 35 percent better than what it was in 2008 and in Wellington housing affordability is 44 percent better than what it was in 2008. I rest my case.Phil Twyford: What is he doing to deal with the consequences of his failed housing policy in the regions where homeowners are losing equity in their homes as a result of first-home buyers being shut out by loan-to-value ratios with Southland down by $22000 in the last year alone while house prices continue to spiral out of control in Auckland and Canterbury?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I note that according to the same survey that the member wanted to quote housing affordability in the regions is 40 percent better than when interest rates were 11 percent when we came into Government and in the course of the 9 years of the previous Government average house prices in New Zealand doubled. So I simply ask that member to reflect on the failed policies of the previous Government that are taking time for us to work through. I just note for example development contributions were changed by Labour’s legislation in 2002. It resulted in their trebling up to $60000 although I note that Labour has now done a backwards flip—Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We all know that the election is coming but I thought that election speeches were meant to be for the campaign trail not answers at question time.Mr SPEAKER: That is not a valid point of order. [Interruption] Order! I am on my feet. The interesting thing if the member had some time would be to ask the library to detail the length of questions that are being asked. I would not mind that as a comparison.Phil Twyford: Can he confirm the panicked phone call from the Minister of Local Government about an hour ago to confirm Labour’s support for the development contributions bill at its third reading; if so why is the Government continuing to play politics with Auckland’s housing and growth like it did with the Resource Management Reform Bill?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The more extraordinary story on both development contributions and the Resource Management Act is that the previous Labour Government spend 9 years making changes to the Resource Management Act and changes to development contributions that actually resulted in house prices doubling. Let me give a simple example. Labour removed the appeal rights on development contributions. We are going to put them back. Labour changed the Resource Management Act which meant that regional policy statements overruled councils on issues like metropolitan urban limits and it is as a very latecomer that Labour now accepts that its changes to the Resource Management Act and its changes to the Local Government Act were wrong.