8. Question No. 8—HousingHon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green) to the Minister of HousingQuestion No. 8—Housing8. Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green) to the Minister of Housing: Has she received any advice on the difference between the infrastructure cost and environmental impact of greenfield development compared to providing more homes within existing urban areas; if so what does that advice say?Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing): Yes. The cost-benefit analysis (CBA) commissioned from Sense Partners and PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) for the Medium Density Residential Standards work had material on this. The CBA showed that the 2016 estimated gross infrastructure cost per dwelling was $38774 for urban intensification and $64954 for greenfields. These numbers are based on the medium scenario. It is also important to note that infrastructure costs can vary considerably across projects. Further to this in 2017 Auckland Council estimated the average infrastructure cost of greenfield developments were $146000 per household. The report also showed that while there were environmental impacts of land development the consequences of these were less felt in brownfield developments. The environmental costs for brownfield sites were estimated at $289.41 per dwelling compared to greenfield sites which were estimated at $725.15 per dwelling.Hon Julie Anne Genter: Thank you for that answer. Has she seen the research demonstrating much higher transport costs for households living on the urban fringe of cities like Auckland which can more than offset the benefit of cheaper housing in those places?Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The work commissioned for the CBA from Sense Partners and PwC in calculating those infrastructure costs of brownfields versus greenfields did take into account the increased cost of transport infrastructure as well.Hon Julie Anne Genter: Point of order. My question wasn't about the infrastructure in this case; it was about the private transport costs for households in addition to the infrastructure—I mean as a separate point.SPEAKER: Do you want to add to that?Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Yes. My point was that that analysis that was done for the CBA did look at those different costs that fall on households comparing brownfields to greenfields.Hon Julie Anne Genter: Does she stand by her statement in relation to the Medium Density Residential Standards that we were more than willing to come back to the table to have a discussion"; and if so would she be open to measures to enable further urban density together with better environmental outcomes?Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I do stand by that statement. I think New Zealand is a better place when we can have political agreement around something as fundamental as our planning laws to handle a housing crisis. I am open to working with other parties so that we can have that certainty that we can have the houses built and that we can have some resolutions to a housing crisis.Hon Julie Anne Genter: Has she requested or received any advice on how development bonuses as proposed by the Green Party when the Medium Density Residential Standards changes were going through Parliament could provide for greater development potential more energy-efficient housing and more accessible housing?Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: We have done a lot of work on how it is the best way that central government can be involved in funding the infrastructure that is required for the funding of either brownfield or greenfield developments. One of the pieces of work that we've spent a lot of time looking at: is it better for central government to put that funding in through just a simple and reasonably blunt instrument like a flat fee per household or is it better to actually work with partners around figuring out how to get best value for money and to ensure that that infrastructure funding is spent? This is of course the way in which we're administering the $1 billion fund that we have set up to work to finally put for the first time since the 1970s core Government infrastructure funding into local councils and local communities. I can tell the House that if you look across at some places cost is as low as $3000 per house. Other places cost as much as $82000 per house in places where we haven't seen infrastructure investment for decades and that's why as a Government we've committed to doing this in the more sophisticated way that actually looks at each project on its merits.Hon Julie Anne Genter: Point of order Mr Speaker. I really appreciate that answer from the Minister but I don't think it addressed the question.SPEAKER: I believe it did.Hon Julie Anne Genter: Well my question was about a specific proposal—SPEAKER: No I'm not arguing with you. It's not an invitation to debate it. It's been addressed. Have you got another question?Hon Julie Anne Genter: Does she agree that enabling development of community services through mixed-use zoning such as doctors dairies schools and retail where intensified development occurs would build on the benefits of higher density housing in existing urban areas?Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I do agree that we have to look at the cost of the social infrastructure that goes along with any new development whether that be greenfield or brownfield. One of the things that we do know in greenfield development is that those costs are even higher because they don't exist unlike in brownfield development. So those numbers that I gave the member in the answer to the primary question didn't include the cost of social infrastructure like education and health; that is additional to the numbers I gave in my primary answer.Hon Julie Anne Genter: Is she confident the Kāinga Ora build programme is providing quality density in existing urban areas and if so why did her Government not commit to longer-term funding for public housing in the most recent Budget?Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: This year's Budget I'm incredibly proud to say builds on what we have done over our now six Budgets and that is put a baseline increase for funding for more public houses. We will have added 21000 places and baselined the funding for that. We have done that over the six years we've been in Government and that represents the largest increase in public housing since the 1970s. I am incredibly proud of that. What it will take is for each and every political party at this upcoming election to say in terms of operational funding what they are willing to put in to further fund the increase of social housing. The public will judge us on our record and see that we have done the most of any Government in decades."