Turei MetiriaMETIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green): Funny story actually: I applied at my high school to do economics and they put me in the home economics class because I am a girl. So there you go. There you go Mr Seymour. And yes if you had known me in fifth form you would have had a really fun time.Anyway I do just want to deal with Mr Seymour's criticism and what he is saying of Supplementary Order Paper 210 which I have on the Table to require that the special housing areas (SHAs) have a proportion of building that is sold at a price that is either at or below four times the median house hold income which is the median multiple that is used internationally as a general definition of affordability.The reason why I think that is justifiable to require in SHAs is that those who get access to an SHA get fast-tracked consenting processes. They actually save money—significant amounts of money—and time in the process of developing that land. It is good that they are developing that land for housing if it is required—because remember there is no obligation for them to build once they get access to the benefit of the fast-tracked consenting process. This Government will not require them to build. In fact even under this new bill they are required only to make an application for a resource consent; it does not require them to get a code of compliance which is indicative of their having built a property. So these speculators these investors and these developers have access to an enormous financial advantage by having their land declared as a special housing area with no obligation to build but with fast-tracked access through the resource consent process.What is their reciprocal obligation to the community whose efforts—through us as representatives in Parliament—time and money are delivered to them for free? These developers get access to the special housing areas and the fast-tracked consents. It is a public interest that is delivered to them for free. What is their reciprocal obligation?Hon Dr Nick Smith: They build houses.METIRIA TUREI: What is their reciprocal obligation back to the public? The Minister says houses" but he is talking about houses that cost $600000 - plus to buy. That is not in the public interest. It is delivered by the whole of the country for developers to be able to get fast-tracked access through the consent process save money—considerable amounts of money—in the process and still at market rates sell off those properties. That is not providing a reciprocal responsibility back to the public who have provided to those developers some access to services and support that costs money and that the developers do not have to pay for.We want to make sure that if there is going to be a gift from the public to these developers there is a reciprocal obligation for them to provide a public benefit. One of the public benefits that has to be provided as part of any housing development process that is driven by the Government on behalf of the country as a whole is that affordable housing is built and provided. That is the whole point of the special housing areas—that affordable housing is built and provided for sale.There is no requirement in the special housing areas policy as it is or under this bill for genuinely affordable housing to be provided by those developers. The Green Party says that that is part of the deal. You the developer get access to this special fast-tracked process. You get to save money as you do it. You get to make money from quite a big proportion of the properties you build and sell but you have a reciprocal obligation back to the New Zealand public who have given you that opportunity.Why is it so difficult for the Government to understand that reciprocal obligation? It should also be understandable by the ACT member. I know he has got a philosophy that he lives by in ACT and it is great that ACT has got one of those—Hon Members: Ha ha!METIRIA TUREI: —I did mean that nicely; it came out kind of not quite—but even in that sense he should be able to understand that if there is a genuine balance or equitable relationship between two parties to a deal then both parties need to benefit from that deal in a genuine way. That is part of the philosophy.At the moment all of the benefit rests with the developer of the special housing areas. We know that because most of the special housing areas in Auckland have not had any building on them yet. That is because land banking those special housing areas and getting the consents fast-tracked but not building provides those developers with a financial windfall that is delivered to them by the public.So let us just find a way—a gentle way. It is not going to scare anybody massively. It is not going to make a huge financial imposition on those developers. It is not going to stop further SHAs from continuing. If this Supplementary Order Paper passes it simply provides a mechanism for making sure that there is some reciprocity in this deal. That is at least the minimum that we should be requiring as members of Parliament representing constituents who are locked out of the housing market and who are telling us every day that there is a housing crisis and that they cannot afford to buy houses when they need them. This is at least some way that we can make sure their interests are better represented. It is not complicated. It is a small amendment to the existing legislation. It makes it clear what the affordability target is which the Minister himself has agreed is a good target: four times the median household income. He has publicly said that he understands that to be the right target.Let us make sure that when we as a Parliament are doing deals to improve housing in New Zealand and to increase the supply of housing in New Zealand—as we know needs to happen—there is a clear target for what affordability means. This is so that everybody who is involved in the deals around building homes knows what they are getting into with full disclosure about what is expected by the Government in engaging in this deal and so that it is financially responsible—because of course this is not a huge imposition on those developers. It gives them an opportunity to look more comprehensively at their overall building package—how many homes they are going to build and sell for significantly more and there will be some people in the market who can afford to buy those homes at quite an inflated price—and to make sure that they will be able to make a significant profit and keep on developing. This is not going to provide any chilling effect on these developers; it just slightly changes their price points and how they manage the properties they have got.It is absolutely essential that we get more affordable housing and the only way to do that is to be clear about what affordability is—which is three to four times the median household income—and to make sure that those who are getting a public benefit from this legislation have an obligation back to the public to build those houses.More than 80 percent of Aucklanders have said that there is a housing crisis. Well over 50 percent—in some cases 60 percent—of New Zealanders say that house prices need to fall including homeowners and including Aucklanders. We know that it is a crisis and it needs to be dealt with. This is a small change that could be made to fix at least some of the problems we have with SHAs that are not delivering. It is not expensive. It is not complicated. It is just sensible and it respects the public benefit that these developers are getting. Thank you."