Twyford Phil: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTwyford Phil: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 04 June 2015. Volume:706;Page:4340. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]9.PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū) to the Minister for Building and Housing: Can he confirm he intends to redesignate land held for transport and education as “land that is held for state housing purposes” so that under section 136 of the Ngā Mana Whenua o Tāmaki Makaurau Collective Redress Act 2014 he can circumvent the right of iwi to first right of refusal under treaty settlements?Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Building and Housing):No we will be following the longstanding process that has been followed by multiple Governments—that is where an agency no longer requires land it is first offered to other public entities. This process has always preceded either offers back to former owners or right of first refusal. I draw to the member’s attention that under this process land has been acquired for housing at Hobsonville from the Defence Force at McLennan Park in Papakura from the Ministry of Social Development at Weymouth and last year from the New Zealand Transport Agency at Awatea Roadin Christchurch. We will be following exactly the same process with the Government’s latest new initiative on housing.Hon Nanaia Mahuta: Did he seek Crown Law advice as to whether or not the right of first refusal provisions are prejudicially affected without following the process set out in the property redress provisions of the Tāmaki Collective deed?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Yes I have sought legal advice to use the Housing Act 1955 to acquire land in areas such as Hobsonville—in the same way that the previous Government used exactly the same provisions. That was done by those members. They did the same at McLennan Park. They also may be interested to know that they used exactly the same provision at Weymouth. The double standard opposite is that when they use the process sometimes they think it is helping. When we use it somehow—Mr SPEAKER: Order!Hon Nanaia Mahuta: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question was specific in that I asked whether Crown Law advice had been sought—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The question was answeredimmediately.Joanne Hayes: When was the decision made to acquire from other agencies under the Housing Act 1955 land for housing at Hobsonville Weymouth and Papakura and what progress was made on constructing houses in these areasand in what time frame?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The decision to use the Housing Act 1955 to designate land for housing purposes was made in 2001 by Cabinet—Hon David Parker: That’s before the settlement.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: —and former Prime Minister Helen Clark turned the first sod in 2002. The practice at that time for the benefit of members opposite was that it was land banked if there was not a Treaty settlement in the area but that was not done either. The project became completely moribund and absolutely no houses had been built by 2008. What has changed is that yes they used the Housing Act powers to designate a whole lot of areas for housing like at Weymouth Hobsonville and McLennan Park. The only problem was that they did not build a single house.Hon Nanaia Mahuta: Was the meeting that took place on 23 April to outline the proposed Auckland Crown land housing programme and to identify the sites that were under consideration considered to be a notice to the limited partnership; if so why?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The meeting that was held about a month before the Budget was with the chair of the Tāmaki Collective and it outlined the Government’s intentions for the programme. It was a preliminary heads-up because actually Cabinet had not made the decision at that point to make the Budget provision—it was about a couple of weeks before the Budget figures were finalised. I would also note that since that time there has been an exchange of letters and further meetings with the Tāmaki Collective.Hon Nanaia Mahuta: Does the provision of State housing on surplus Crown land in Auckland require all homes to be owned by the State and not available for private property interests?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I draw the member’s attention to the definition of “State housing purposes” under the Housing Act. It says: “State housing purposes means the erection acquisition or holding of dwellings … for disposal by way of sale lease or tenancy; and includes … schemes of development and subdivision into sites for dwellings:”. The Act is very clear that it includes the provision of housing for sale.Phil Twyford: Why has he deliberately undermined the good-faith approach taken by his colleague the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations when negotiating settlements with the same Auckland iwi that he is now trying to rort with his panicked land-deal stunt?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: A simple question that I have got for members opposite is: why did they vote for the Tāmaki Collective legislation last year which specifically provided for an exemption to the right of first refusal when the land was to be used for housing purposes and why was it not a “rort” which the member now calls it when Labour used exactly the same provision at Hobsonville exactly the same provision at Weymouth and exactly the same provision at McLennan Park?Phil Twyford: Does he regret that his smart-alecky manipulation of the law is likely to provoke legal action that could deny Aucklanders thousands of houses that they are desperate to have?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: When a specific section of the law and the longstanding practice of Government has been that when land is no longer required by an agency like the Ministry of Defence the Ministry of Transport or the Ministry of Education it is to be made available first for housing—something that the previous Government did repeatedly; something that was specifically included in the Tāmaki Collective legislation—I just see how desperate the Opposition has become.Phil Twyford: What advice has he sought or received regarding possible countersuit litigation from disgruntled property developers after the sweeping promises he is said to have made to them last Friday and what contingency has been made for any resulting compensation payouts?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I know the member is jealous that last week we had a very constructive meeting of 250 developers who want to partner with the Government for housing. What I find difficult with this member is that he spends half his time arguing that the Government needs to do more on housing and then the other half criticising this initiative criticising HomeStart and criticising special housing areas. The fact is that this Government is making great progress as seen by the fact that we have doubled the rate of new house builds in Auckland.Phil Twyford: Why did he rush out his half-baked Budget announcement resulting in plans to build family homes on substations and cemeteries then slash his promised 500 hectares to only 30 hectares and now facing the likelihood that it will all end up in court try to blame everybody else for yet another self-inflicted housing fiasco?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I remind the House that 18 months ago we signed the Auckland Housing Accord and the member opposite said that there was no way the Government would meet the targets. Actually we are running about a thousand ahead of those targets. What I find bizarre as well is that the member is all in favour of a more intensive Auckland except that he is opposed to houses being next to substations he is opposed to houses being next to railway lines he is opposed to houses being next to motorways—he is opposed to houses anywhere but somehow he still wants them.