Sage Eugenie: Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeSage Eugenie: Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 05 September 2013. Volume:693;Page:13346. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]EUGENIE SAGE (Green): The Green Party does not believe that this Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Bill is part of a good solution to our housing affordability crisis and it is not just the Green Party that is saying this. As the Hamilton City Council said in its submission: “Housing affordability is a complex issue and it would be better for the Government to develop a comprehensive integrated and holistic affordable housing policy in collaboration with key stakeholders.”Of course local authorities are one of those key stakeholders. The Christchurch City Council is the largest provider of social housing in New Zealand after Housing New Zealand. But this bill undermines any sense of collaboration and partnership with those stakeholders because of the ministerial override provisions. They allow the Minister to cut across the statutory role of local authorities in deciding in consultation with their communities where new subdivision and residential development should occur and how it should occur. If the Minister cannot agree with the council he can then simply designate special housing areas and just establish them and have the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment take over the consenting role. And he can revoke those areas at will as well.Where these special housing areas are created outside metropolitan urban limits—we had the Minister talking about thousands of hectares of land being freed up—this will be a boon for property developers because if the development is a “qualifying development” in terms of the criteria in clause 14 of the bill and in any regulations that the Minister chooses to gazette the developer can then apply to fast track those developments. That shuts out the community from decisions on where and how and when urban growth should occur because under those fast-track provisions it is only neighbouring landowners the local council requiring authorities and infrastructure providers that may be notified and may have an opportunity to put in submissions. So that is one of the reasons why the Green Party opposes the bill. It cuts right across public participation and it also limits appeal rights.We are also opposing it because despite the rhetoric of the Minister it is not about simplifying and streamlining. It is setting up a different decision-making process with different criteria to those that exist in the Resource Management Act. We also oppose it because it erodes local democracy through the Minister’s override powers and his ability to establish these special housing areas.Again as with the Resource Management Act changes the Government is talking about quick decisions rather than quality decisions. So we risk having ad hoc sporadic urban development and urban sprawl rather than the compact urban areas that we want for sustainable growth. As Local Government New Zealand said in its submission: “The pendulum has swung too far in the direction of speed away from community involvement and the robust assessment of environmental effects.” So yes we may get things happening quickly but that does not mean that they are going to be sustainable over the long term.We also oppose the bill because it does not recognise the work that a lot of local authorities are doing to plan for growth. You have got the Wellington City Council which has got a sound urban development strategy. That has over 20 years of land supply through a mix of high density infill developments central city apartments and greenfield land. Again it is this Government centralising power rather than trusting local authorities to work with their communities and have sensible growth.We in the Green Party believe that if we are going to deal with this affordable housing crisis you need a package of measures. This includes a capital gains tax on everything except the family home which will help deflate the property investment bubble. We want the Government to recognise that because there has been a market failure the Government should be investing in building affordable homes. As Metiria Turei said that is an investment because if you give people a warm dry safe secure home that is the basis for family stability and it is the basis for healthy families for educational achievement and for good health. That is an investment in our people and in our country not a cost in the way that this Government by relying largely on the market seems to think it is. We wantlivable cities compact cities where you have got land-use planning that is integrated with public transport. This bill does not deliver that. It delivers sprawl and ghettoes on the edges of our cities.