O'Rourke Denis: Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeO'Rourke Denis: Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 16 May 2013. Volume:690;Page:10065. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): New Zealand First considers that there is some good—and some bad—in the Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Bill but we think it is far too little and we think it is far too late. The basic problem with it of course is that it is reactive to a huge problem that has been suddenly realised—just like a light going on for the National Government. National is impulsive. Like a possum in the headlights it knows it has to move. It is likely to move the wrong way and it is probably moving too late.The bill is based on simple expediency and is ideological rather than balanced in its approach. It favours developers’ agendas and sidelines local democracy. It is ad hoc rather than strategic. It is careless about planning documents and substitutes quick-fix band-aid solutions. It is short term not the enduring long-term plan that New Zealand needs. It is superficial rather than well considered and it is incomplete and inadequate rather than the comprehensive plan we need to solve the housing crisis. And it is a housing crisis in New Zealand at this time. Overall this Government is a bit like the crew of a sinking ship all racing to find a lifeboat instead of actually trying to save the ship itself.I can say to you already that right now as we speak profiteers are buying up land that might be used under the new bill’s provisions. They are out there right now having heard what was said in this Budget trying to buy up as much land as they can. It will be a boom time especially for Chinese investors and other quick-fix quick-dollar merchants.But there is some good in the bill—[Interruption]—and if those people opposite want to know what it is because so far they do not even seem to know their own bill then perhaps they should spend more time listening than caterwauling from the other benches. New Zealand First would support special housing areas as a concept but we would do so only on the basis of a genuine accord with local government we would do so only with appropriate streamlining and we would do so only within appropriate specified time frames for consents. So far we do not see anything in this bill or in anything that members opposite have said that would give us any real comfort about those things.New Zealand First would oppose the general non-notification approach as set out. Our concerns especially with that would be the loss of local democracy with too much power given to developers and the fact that it would lead to ticky-tacky developments which are not the quality developments for housing that New Zealand needs. We do not see any reference or intention to try to integrate these areas into transport health and other plans and what New Zealand fundamentally needs is a much more integrated policy framework for these things.New Zealand First would also oppose the width of the proposals concerning plan changes. We think these are too likely to completely compromise district plans and the proposal needs to be somewhat more limited. They need to be consistent with plan objectives and in this coming from Christchurch I would have to say that we should be learning from Christchurch’s experience. There are far too many developments there for housing in inappropriate areas—housing built on areas that we all knew were subject to liquefaction in an earthquake subject to sea level rise and subject to flooding. The developments should not have gone on in those places. So it is very important that these sorts of proposals for special housing areas should be consistent with the objectives in district plans otherwise we are going to entrench all the mistakes that we saw happening in Christchurch.We would support the Government’s proposals for the go-it-alone provision enabling it to issue its own consents where an agreement has not been reached but we think also that that proposal needs to be more limited. Again there needs to be a requirement for consistency with the objectives of the district plan. We do think that it should require notification where the plan itself had required that.Overall we think that we need to balance speed—and we know that this is an urgent issue—with quality because that is just as important a consideration. We are not seeing much of an assurance in this bill or in anything that the National members have said that would address those issues.Another issue is what the Government is not doing and there is plenty. The first question I would ask is how this plan would help homeowners seeking their first home. How would it help low-income earners approach the problem of buying a new home or finding a section? How would it help them to provide the deposit that is necessary and how would it then help them even if they could find a deposit to finance a new home in this day and age? The answer is that there is actually nothing in this bill or in the Budget or in the Government’s proposals that anything like adequately addresses those issues.The Government’s approach is really a half-baked one. It addresses only availability and only in a limited way. It does not address affordability really at all. It is silent on affordability. Supply alone will not result in solving the affordability issue. That is a separate issue which needs special consideration.Another point is how we fix the problem of migrants arriving in this country under the first tier of the parent category with their half a million dollars buying up land and homes in Auckland. Nothing has been said about that. People in Auckland know that that is a major problem. The Government is also silent about that issue. New Zealand First would put a stop to that and that is what we want to see this Government do too.We do not have only criticisms. New Zealand First also has comprehensive plans for housing and our first objective is to simply see that homes are within the reach of all in New Zealand. We believe that there should be a land bank—land actually purchased by the Government to make it available for housing in appropriate areas in New Zealand. We want to see long-term agreements for sale and purchase made available to people so that they can buy a section without having to come up with the full capital cost upfront. They can then pay it off over time and they can still borrow in that case to build a home on the section.We also think there needs to be a comprehensive New Zealand housing strategy that addresses not only availability and affordability. We want to see things like compulsory insurance quality housing provisions such as earthquake-proofing leak-proofing insulation and a whole range of other issues to be incorporated in such a strategy.In the end New Zealand First will support the bill but only to refer it to the select committee. We think that there is much to be fixed in the bill. If we can see that that islooked at seriously by the Government and we can fix many of the problems in it then New Zealand First will certainly consider supporting the bill further. But as it stands it would not be supportable so New Zealand First will support it only to the select committee stage at this point.