Bishop ChrisCHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South): Thank you very much Mr Speaker. Phil Twyford has been a disaster as transport Minister. But—Marja Lubeck: I think we're looking at the disaster.CHRIS BISHOP: Oh. Be kind eh? Isn't that what they say Marja? Didn't they say Be kind"? Clearly the memo didn't get through to the list MP based in Rodney about "Be kind". You're what number? Is it 56 or something? I don't know. Hon Member: 64.CHRIS BISHOP: 64 is it? She's going to lose by about 19448 votes I think but anyway.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Back to the bill eh?CHRIS BISHOP: Well she started it Mr Speaker. But fair enough. Anyway Phil Twyford has been a disaster as Minister of Transport but he has got a couple of things right. One of them is the Infrastructure Funding and Financing Bill because actually Phil Twyford intellectually understands the case for urban land reform and for changing the way in which we finance infrastructure in New Zealand. He recognises quite adroitly the connection between funding of infrastructure by local councils and housing supply. I have quite a lot of experience with the challenges of funding and financing infrastructure properly because my own electorate my own area is very similar to many other parts of the country that are struggling—Hon Scott Simpson: Where is your area?CHRIS BISHOP: Lower Hutt. Thank you Mr Simpson. Struggling with the challenges of rapid population growth—actually in some ways quite surprising population growth—and funding the housing supply to keep up with that growth. And the challenge of—Darroch Ball: Oh here we go. What did you guys do in nine years? What did you guys do in nine years? You just figure it out now did you?CHRIS BISHOP: Well no no no no no I'm not making a party political point. This problem goes back across our Government and the Government before that and the Government before that. This is a 30-year problem we've had in New Zealand. And what we've had in Lower Hutt is—Lower Hutt was fine for about 15 years when the population stayed stagnant. It had 100000 people; it bubbled along. When I was growing up in Lower Hutt the population of the Hutt was about 100000 people—that was 20 years ago. I'm 36 about to turn 37. In between 2013 and 2019 the population in Lower Hutt grew by 10000 people—so 10 percent growth in Lower Hutt in five years. Now by any stretch that is very rapid growth particularly for a city that had become used to a stagnant population that was not growing. Now a growing population is a good thing. Cities that are growing are more vibrant; economically they are more competitive. And all cities I think frankly want people to move there. I mean in the same way New Zealand wants people to move to New Zealand cities want people to move there because actually a growing city is the sign of a successful city in the same way a growing country is a sign of a successful country. Actually over time if you don't grow you stagnate and you wither and you die. So of course we want people in Lower Hutt but you've got to build the infrastructure.The problem that's happened in Lower Hutt in the last five years—seven years in particular—is we've constrained housing supply growth. We've made it impossible to build new housing. The effect of that the effect of not building more housing in Lower Hutt has been house price increases of $300000 over the last five to six years; rent is up $200 on average per week in the last four years; and the social housing waiting list has quintupled in the last three years and is at record levels. There are over 500 families in the Hutt priority A and B waiting for a home. They're priority A and B they're the most urgently in need of housing support and they can't get one.Of course the thing I always say to people is: our housing problems are connected. It's not enough just to say we need to solve homelessness. Of course we need to address homelessness and of course we need to do programmes like Housing First. I commend the Government for continuing with the Housing First programme to wrap that social support around people who are at the real hard edge of homelessness. It's not enough just to say "We need to solve homelessness." Frankly it's not enough just to say things like "Well we need to get rents under control." Everything in the housing market is interconnected; everything you do in housing relates to supply. You grow the supply of housing you constrain rapid house price increases and you make it easier for people to rent. You constrain those rent increases because rent increases are obviously highly correlated to house price increases. Of course once you constrain rate increases you make it easier for people in the private rental market to get into a home. You don't crowd people out of the private rental market who then have to be forced to rely on social housing. People who can't afford market rents—private market rents—obviously approach the Ministry of Social Development and Kāinga Ora and say "I need a home." and if there's a fixed supply of Kāinga Ora houses and social houses in some areas—which there is—then those people struggle to find their way into a home. That's why we have a social housing waiting list. That's why there are 500 people in Lower Hutt waiting for a home right now. They can't get into a social house because there are not enough numbers; they can't access the private rental market because they can't afford it even with the accommodation supplement; and they certainly can't afford a mortgage. So we have to reform the way in which we fund infrastructure to fund housing and that's the critical connection that we absolutely have to understand. The good news is on this side of the House we get it. We started the infrastructure funding and financing work in Government under Bill English and then continued by Steven Joyce and we have carried that through.Marja Lubeck: It's not the party of Key and English any more.CHRIS BISHOP: That is both incredibly insightful but also one of the most trite statements you could ever make because they are literally not here. So well done Marja for that stunning insight: Steven Joyce and Bill English and John Key are not here. Congratulations. The deep thinker from Rodney worked out that people have left. Well actually she's about to leave at the next election and we look forward to that and the—anyway. So we get it and before I was interrupted by the rudeness from Rodney I was actually going to make it a nice point which is Phil gets it and he's continuing it. It's taken too long hasn't it Ms Dean—it's taken too long. We're sort of what three weeks out from the House lifting and this is only the second reading. I mean it's nuts when you think about it. Fletcher Tabuteau: Imagine what we can do in nine years.CHRIS BISHOP: But at least it's been—"Imagine what we could do in nine years." says Under-Secretary Tabuteau. I don't want to imagine what this Government would do in nine years. If the social housing waiting list in Lower Hutt quintupled in three years I don't know what the multiple of 15 is but it's a lot and if you had nine years we would all be in trouble. We'd all be in trouble. Hon Scott Simpson: The member won't have to worry though.CHRIS BISHOP: "That member won't have to worry." says Mr Simpson. That's correct. But anyway there is a serious point which is that what this does is make sure that the people who benefit from the new development pay for that development. That sounds like a simple idea actually but it actually is quite a revolutionary concept which is that if a council wants to facilitate new development the people who are the beneficiaries of that development—people who benefit from the infrastructure the waste water and the roads and the infrastructure that goes into facilitating that development—they will pay. At the moment you've got this weird situation—or at least difficult situation—where existing ratepayers are asked to pay for the infrastructure and they pay for it through their own rates. Unsurprisingly that creates a backlash to varying degrees of intensity from existing ratepayers. So what we're saying is absolutely councils need to get on and facilitate new housing supply yep and central government's got a role in doing that—absolutely. But the fundamental part of that infrastructure to facilitate those developments will come from local councils. What we're saying is this creates a new funding model and new vehicles to make sure that can happen: special purpose vehicles which can raise capital finance the infrastructure commission construction of the infrastructure and transfer it over time back to the relevant local authority. We examined it pretty closely in the Transport and Infrastructure Committee. It probably doesn't go as far as we in the Opposition would like it to go. It's something that we will re-examine in Government. But it is good that there is a consensus across the Parliament I think—I hope—that this bill will make a difference. There is no doubt in my mind that one of the greatest challenges we will face as a country over the next 20 years—the immediate short-term priority is COVID obviously but over the next 10 to 20 years we have got to make sure that local councils can fund infrastructure properly. We know that on this side of the House and we intend to make sure that we are part of the solution not just part of the problem. Thank you."