Turei MetiriaMETIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green): I watched the Minister stand and do quite a bit of shouting and try to justify his failures based on a reflection on history. But of course every Minister will stand and fall on their record and this Minister's record—along with the other two Ministers who are also responsible for housing. So the three Ministers in this National Government—Marama Davidson: Three? All of them?METIRIA TUREI: They assigned three. Well arguably that is why we are in such a disaster. It took three of them to create the legacy of the highest levels of homelessness we have seen in a generation—Nick Smith can stand on that record. The lowest rate of homeownership that we have seen in a generation or two—Nick Smith can stand on that record. The record high prices where the average house in Auckland now costs $1 million—well Nick Smith can certainly stand on that record.Marama Davidson: Well done!METIRIA TUREI: Yeah well done Nick Smith! Increasing rents to the extent that ordinary families are being driven out of rental properties and into homes in cars and garages—Nick Smith can stand on that record. He can stand there and argue about history all he likes; New Zealand will look on his time as Minister—his history—and rightly judge his failings as a housing Minister against the record that he has created. For all of the posturing and the shouting that goes on that is his record and what is his response to that record? His response is this bill: a continuation of a failed policy in Auckland and the removal of property rights from a wide range of New Zealanders none of whom he could identify when asked about that. So his record of failure will continue and it would just be a usual political issue I guess that you would expect of this National Government except that it is not Nick Smith who suffers; it is thousands and thousands of New Zealand families young New Zealanders and elderly New Zealanders who are all looking for secure decent and affordable homes to live in. In a country as rich beautiful and resourceful as ours this Government has somehow driven our housing to the worst possible state we could expect where so many New Zealanders can now not afford to rent a home or to buy a home. That is the record of Nick Smith the other two housing Ministers appointed to oversee the debacle and this National Government as a whole. I do want to just in my time in the second reading—time that we would have spent had any of this gone to a select committee talking about the effects of this legislation on New Zealanders. We would have heard submissions from people involved in speculation: people who are developers speculators and investors. We would have heard from families who live around these areas who are concerned about the extent to which they were locked out of consultation because of the fast-track consent process that is built into the special housing area legislation. We would have heard from those who had provided land to the State for housing areas and other public works who were going to be declined the ability to have the offer back—so who would not be offered back the land that they had gifted or provided to the State—and about the effect of this bill on them. We would have been able to make a much better assessment of the impacts of this legislation on New Zealanders because we would have talked with New Zealanders about the bill and its impact. That is what the select committee process is for. That is the core of the democratic approach to legislation that we have built in this country—that we in this room might make the final decisions but we do it after consulting with the country which is impacted by the decisions that we make. That is our core function as members of this House of Representatives—that we go out and speak with our people about the laws that we are intending to pass. But of course that is not happening with this legislation because despite the fact that these are substantive issues and we could have spent some time talking with New Zealanders about them National will not allow those voices to be heard. National has shut down the debate with the public about the impact of the special housing areas and the need for real solutions to the housing crisis. National shut down—or tried to shut down—the homelessness inquiry. The Opposition took that on board itself and went out and spoke with New Zealanders and now National is trying to shut down any real analysis of the impact of the special housing areas on New Zealanders—their failings and even potentially their advantages. So when we make decisions about this bill today National can be assured that it does not know what the effect of this bill will be. National members will vote for this legislation not knowing what the impact will be on New Zealanders because they have deliberately chosen not to listen to New Zealanders' views. That is the value that the National Government holds for our core democratic processes here. The National Government does not want to hear from New Zealanders about the impact of this legislation; hence we are in urgency for this bill.I just want to put on the record the three Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) that the Green Party is putting forward on this legislation as we move from this debate into the Committee stage. Just very briefly—we will go into them in more detail in the Committee stage of this bill. The first of the SOPs deletes clause 10 which is the clause that relates to the disposal of State land. That is the clause that will mean that people will not be offered back the land that they have given to the State for a public purpose. We want to delete the clause to protect New Zealanders' property rights where they have provided land to the State for a particular purpose but this National Government does not want to give it back to them. There is a second SOP which amends section 14 of the original legislation. Section 14 of the original legislation defines a qualifying development. Section 14(1)(d) says that a qualifying development will not contain less than a certain percentage of affordable housing. It is a little bit oblique as to what that percentage is and it is certainly oblique as to what the definition of affordable is. So my SOP will change the original legislation to say that in effect the definition of affordable housing is a price at or less than four times the median household income. Four times the median household income—it is described as a median multiple" in economic language—is a way of describing affordability in a technical way. It allows for some flexibility in price because it is related both to income the median household income and to the price of housing. Four times the median household income has been supported actually by the Minister for Building and Housing Nick Smith as being about right for an affordable house. But there is no obligation in the special housing areas for homes to be provided at or below that price and that needs to be changed.Finally the third SOP will change this bill to allow for the eight current developers and the eight special housing areas in Auckland to continue with their consent application process but will not allow for any further special housing areas to be developed. The reason for that is we must not allow this failed policy to continue in Auckland until there are provisions to stop land banking. Unless there are provisions to stop land banking allowing more special housing areas in Auckland will simply drive up prices create wealth for land bankers and speculators and not deliver actual affordable homes for New Zealanders to live in. So we have three SOPs on the Table. They deal with the core concerns that the Green Party has with this bill. We invite members to consider seriously those SOPs and to support them if they agree with us about those concerns. We will at least try to fix this legislation even though National has done such an appalling job initially. Thank you."