Twyford Phil: Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTwyford Phil: Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 03 September 2013. Volume:693;Page:13202. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—TeAtatū): I want to make some comments about the title clause and I have three suggestions for the Committee to consider in respect of alternative titles for the Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Bill. The first coined by my colleague Jacinda Ardern is the “Trickle-down Housing Bill”. I want to say how unconvinced we are by the last-minute desperate effort by the Minister of Housing to defend himself from accusations and pressure about the fact that this bill does not contain any real mechanism to deliver affordable housing. By inserting at the last minute a provision that gives the Government the power to issue by Order in Council some requirements for a certain proportion of affordable housing units in a qualifying development gives us no confidence at all. I want to tell the Committee why.The first reason is that requiring a proportion of affordable housing units is what is known asinclusionary zoning. This Government within a month of being elected after the 2008 election repealed theinclusionary zoning provisions that the former Labour Government had passed. This Government did away with all of the intentions of including State housing and affordable housing in Hobsonville the biggest most promising urban development opportunity in Auckland. We have heard from the Minister on numerous occasions at the select committee and in this Chamber that he does not believe ininclusionary zoning. He does not believe that it works. He does not believe that it is a good thing. So giving the Government the power to requireinclusionary zoning by Order in Council gives us no confidence at all that it will actually happen for those reasons.The second title that we think is worthy of consideration is the “Poor Quality Housing Bill”. I just want to point to some aspects of the bill that do give cause for alarm. Clauses 32 and 61 of the bill for example have the effect of essentially taking the Resource Management Act out of consideration when considering qualifying developments in special housing areas. They strip the Resource Management Act out of the decision-making process for special housing areas. It is pretty clear when you think about the reported comments of the Minister where he told theNew Zealand Herald on 25 May that Aucklanders need to get over theirnimbyism and accept lower quality developments if they want affordable housing. The Minister said: “Higher quality equates to high price.” and that Aucklanders need to accept lower quality developments.This is one of the really disturbing things about this bill—that it seeks to speed up the provision of affordable housing by reducing the quality protections and the environmental protections that we would normally apply to housing developments. That I think is a real concern to Aucklanders. They do not want slums but it is clearly the view of Nick Smith that if Aucklanders want affordable housing they have to accept lower standards.The third title that I want to suggest and that I think would be a much more suitable title for this bill is the “Throw the Baby Out with the Bathwater Housing Bill”. There are three things that National wants to trade off in order to deliver more housing development in Auckland. The first is democracy and we know from the override clauses in this bill that it is willing to take yet again more powers away from local government. The Human Rights Commission expressed concern about this in its submission on the bill and talked about the constant centralising of powers and taking away from local government.The quality protections and the environmental protections I have already mentioned. The last point I want to make is that this bill thoughtlessly undermines the protection that certain special areas like the Waitakere Ranges enjoy by dint of the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Act. That Act until the passing of this bill has enjoyed primacy over other district and regional plans. Those other plans are required to be consistentwith the provisions of the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Act. But unfortunately this bill dilutes those protections and it requires only the provisions of the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Act to be considered. They do not have to be consistent with those provisions.