Turner Judy: Affordable Housing: Enabling Territorial Authorities Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Turner Judy: Affordable Housing: Enabling Territorial Authorities Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:649;Page:18464] 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I stand on behalf of United Future to oppose sadly the second reading of the Affordable Housing: Enabling Territorial Authorities Bill. United Future supported this bill going to the Local Government and Environment Committee and we had very high hopes that the Government was making a real effort to address a genuine problem. United Future has gone on record historically as saying it wishes that this 2008 election was being fought around the issue of affordable housing—that both National and Labour would be trying to outdo each other in putting forward to voters some really workable options to increase homeownership for middle and low income New Zealanders. So we are very disappointed to have reached a point where we can no longer support this bill. 
I have to say that I am a little surprised that the Maori Party is supporting the bill. That party has gone on record on numerous occasions in this House in support of people’s property rights. This bill has the ability to seriously breach the rights of property owners and put demands on them in a way that I think is inconsistent with the stands that party has taken on previous issues. 
This bill provides but does not demand that territorial authorities should they wish can develop some affordable housing policy at a local level. It is really clear from the feedback from local government that some territorial authorities are already doing this. They are the ones that have been looking for a little bit of legislative support to continue what they are doing and we acknowledge that. But a whole lot of territorial authorities are currently quite uninterested and they are particularly uninterested in some of the options that are put before us in this bill. 
If a territorial authority chooses to consult as it is required to do first of all and to set up a scheme to offer affordable housing options it is then able to put some quite strong demands on property developers forcing them to make available some of their land for affordable housing. Territorial authorities have always had the option of providing incentives through lower compliance costs and a number of other mechanisms to incentivise those options but what they would get out of this bill if they so choose is the ability to actually impose that type of provision on to a property owner and a property developer. We think that is a very sad option. 
I questioned the Minister and she kindly gave me a briefing because I wanted to try to get my head around how this could play itself out at a local level. I asked the Minister whether the bill in the way it has been written could for instance stop a local council showing preferential treatment to one developer over another making no demands on one property developer—making no requirement that it set aside land for affordable housing—but choosing to put requirements on another developer within its territorial authority. She admitted that yes it was quite possible under this legislation for preferential treatment to be given to developers within a territorial authority. So already we start to see some real flaws that could happen off the back of this bill should it pass in its current form. 
Another concern mentioned in the commentary on the bill as it has been reported back from the select committee is around the adequacy statement because the regulatory impact assessment unit does not consider that this proposal meets the consultation requirements for regulatory impact analysis. Really if there is any strength to this proposal it is that the territorial authority in setting up an affordable housing scheme is required to do some consultation with its constituents. That is a good requirement but some concern is expressed by the regulatory impact assessment unit that it does not believe the provisions as stated in the bill currently are sufficient to mean that the consultation process is done in a way that is helpful. 
I was interested to find out from the Minister why she had chosen to set up a separate bill rather than to amend the Resource Management Act and/or the Local Government Act 2002. Certainly the commentary on the bill gives some reasons around that. Apparently the Local Government Act 2002 could not be used in its present form to require developers to contribute towards affordable housing and territorial authorities obviously wanted the flexibility and the choice as to whether they opted into these provisions in the legislation. So it will depend on where people live in New Zealand and on the priority set by their local authority as to whether this legislation will even have application and provide affordable housing options for them. A huge amount of choice is given to territorial authorities. However once they decide to take advantage of the provisions of this bill then I think a lot of problems could kick in particularly for property developers in a way that United Future feels breach the very principles that we as a party have based ourselves on. 
United Future is committed—along with other parties in this House—in seeing what can be done to improve affordable housing options in New Zealand. Right now in New Zealand we face a housing crisis. It is increasingly difficult for first home owners to get their proverbial foot on that first rung and much more can be done. Most of us bought our first house with Government assistance. Short-term loans were given to kick-start our deposit. The family benefit could be capitalised. Historically there have been a whole lot of helpful mechanisms. 
United Future for instance would like to explore the option of capitalising Working for Families payments. A whole lot of things could have been considered by this Government and we are very disappointed that it has limited itself to hitting property developers rather than putting forward a bill that could have included a whole lot of other really excellent options that we would have been able to support. We are sorry to have to pull our support at this time.