O'Rourke DenisDENIS O'ROURKE (NZ First): I want to begin by making some comments about what the Minister for Houselessness" said about affordability of housing in Christchurch because it is a most inappropriate example to use. As some others have indicated the reason is that in Christchurch as a result of the earthquake huge amounts of Earthquake Commission and insurance money went in and as a result of demolitions there was a lot of land that became available for building both in the central city and in the east. In addition to that a lot of people simply moved out of Christchurch to areas immediately next door like the Selwyn and Waimakariri districts. So the issue in Christchurch was not so much a land supply problem; it was actually much more a house supply problem because land always was and still is available. So you cannot use the Christchurch situation as a valid example of proving the effectiveness of Government policy. It is just not applicable.What is applicable and what is core to this issue is affordability and that cannot—and I challenge the Minister for Building and Housing on this—just be solved by supply of land. There is a lot more to it than that because affordability refers to appropriate-sized sections for modest homes at prices that people can therefore afford. What is actually happening as a result of the free-market approach—which is really the approach supported by the Government—is that developers like to build larger homes on large sections because they get larger profits from doing it. It is no good the Minister shaking his head because I have looked around in all parts of New Zealand especially in Christchurch where I live and tried to find a modest-sized home on a modest section for a reasonable price. It is very difficult to do. What is available are plenty of large expensive homes on large sections. So the market does not really solve the affordability problem as a result of just opening up supply.Affordability also refers to access to terms of purchase that people can handle and that is the thrust of New Zealand First's policy. It divides the purchasing of a section—that we would assist them to do—with the building of a house and if the security for the section is at second priority people can still go out therefore and get a loan for a house on first mortgage and build their own home. That is the approach that we want to take. But affordability also—and this what the objective is of some of the Supplementary Order Papers that we have before us—applies to the total cost whether it is within the range of people to finance or not. It is really as simple as that.Now David Seymour seems to think that the market will look after that as well but that is not true—that is not true. There are so many people in this country who will never be able to finance their own home under current conditions. It is not just a supply issue; it is beyond that. It is an affordability issue. So just extending the time for special housing areas (SHAs) is not actually going to be enough at all. So I would like to ask the Minister: why has the Government not done more than just extend the period for SHAs in this legislation when there are so many other things it could do not just to assist supply but to assist the problem of affordability?For that reason New Zealand First will support Supplementary Order Paper 210 because we would support anything that would assist that issue although we do think that our policy is better than that set out in Supplementary Order Paper 210. Nevertheless it is doing something positive so we will support it. The Government obviously has no better ideas. It is just going to vote against that but not put anything in its place and that is unsatisfactory. David Seymour seems to think that the market is going to be enough and the market will look after everything—just give them a free hand and away they will go. That is no way to address affordability. It will be a failure as the Government's policy and proposals are."