Twyford Phil: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTwyford Phil: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 02 June 2016. Volume:714;Page:11637. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]7.PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū) to the Minister for Building and Housing: In light of his claim the Government has been systematically dismantling the urban limit does his proposed National Policy Statement on Urban Development abolish Auckland’s urban growth limit?Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Building and Housing): The Government has systematically dismantled Auckland’s urban limit—firstly with the special housing areas which allows new residential areas beyond the limit; secondly with the fast-track process for Auckland’s new unitary plan which will permanently replace it; and thirdly with today’s national policy statement which would make it impossible to recreate. Abolishing the urban limit is the easy bit;it is what rules and plans you replace it with that matters and that is what the independent hearings panel is doing with the unitary plan.Phil Twyford: Why does his national policy statement endorse the approach of drip-feeding land when doing that in Auckland clearly just feeds the rampant property speculation; and why does he not just abolish the urban growth boundary?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: It is clear that the member has not read the Government’s national policy statement. Secondly the member pretends that if you just whip the metropolitan urban limit away that is all you need to do. You have to answer the question beyond that metropolitan urban limit. What are the rules if somebody wants to build an apartment building? What are the rules if somebody wants to build a factory? What are the rules if somebody wants to build a house? That is where the member continues to have sound bites rather than policies.Phil Twyford: How does he expect Auckland ratepayers to fund the $17 billion of infrastructure needed to support Auckland’s growth when he has offered them nothing to fix that in his national policy statement?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The reason the national policy statement does not answer the question as to who funds the infrastructure is that that would be outside the law of what you can do in a national policy statement and that member would be the very first to criticise me if I started breaking the law. We did make changes to the Local Government Act in 2014—interestingly changes that the member opposed but he has done so many flip-flops it does not surprise me. Those changes to the Local Government Act made it plain that the cost of infrastructure should be met by the developer who is selling the sections and secondly those changes enabled infrastructure agreements and those infrastructure agreements allow innovative ideas like infrastructure bonds to be used.Phil Twyford: Can he confirm that Auckland’s draft unitary plan already includes demand assessments and staged injections of land supply and that all his huffing and puffing has come to nothing because his national policy statement is no different from what Auckland Council is already doing?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: It may have missed the member that the draft unitary plan currently has no legal effect. It is before an independent hearings panel and I would urge that member to not make views around whether it is a good plan or a bad plan until the independent hearings panel has finished its job. What the Government can do is make its expectations very clear and that is what it has done with a national policy statement that requires the council to ensure there is adequate development capacity.Phil Twyford: Why after years of talking tough and blaming councils for expensive housing and 8 years after he promised a national policy statement in the National Party election manifesto is he not embarrassed and humiliated that this is all he has got to show for it?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The member may be interested that the first urban development national policy statement was promised by one of his colleagues in 2001—2001. I would also say to the member when he asks me to be bold—is it not interesting that he challenges me to break the metropolitan urban limit I bring legislation before this House with special housing areas to do just that and he delays the legislation in the Parliament and argues against it at every stage through Parliament? That just shows that that member on housing has had every single position that the Kama Sutra could have invented. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] We now move to question—[Interruption] Order! We now move to question No. 8.