Robertson GrantGRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): No one else seems to be bothered to take a call. If there was nothing else to describe Nick Smith as a Minister for Building and Housing and his policies we have seen two emblems of them today. The first of those is that he is now the million-dollar Minister". That is Nick Smith's lasting legacy to the people of New Zealand—that the average house price in Auckland is a million dollars. I want to be clear about what that will get you in Auckland: a million dollars in Auckland today will get you a two-bedroom brick-and-tile in Mt Roskill.Marama Davidson: Is that all?GRANT ROBERTSON: A two-bedroom brick-and-tile in Mt Roskill is the million-dollar dream of this Minister. That is a disgraceful legacy to New Zealand to see housing go so far out of the reach of hard-working New Zealanders—the primary school teachers the firefighters in Auckland who cannot afford to live there anymore. It is a city with a housing market out of control and for 8 years all we have had from the National Government is denial—a denial that there is a problem; an excuse; a person to blame; an organisation to blame—anyone other than this National Government stepping up and taking responsibility. Today Nick Smith can say "I'm the silver medal winner for New Zealand." because New Zealand has the second most overvalued properties compared with rents and the second most overvalued properties compared with incomes in the OECD. That is what we have reached under Nick Smith: a housing market that for most young New Zealanders means the Kiwi Dream of owning their own home being part of a community and providing security and stability for their families is slipping away.The National Government comes to the House today with the second of the emblems of Nick Smith's time: yet another piecemeal tinkering small measure that the Government brings forward and then says: "You've got to do this under urgency." It is an emblem of the catalogue of incompetence and of the chaotic and damaging housing policy of Nick Smith to bring this bill to this House under urgency.I want to state right now that the Government should accept a Supplementary Order Paper from Phil Twyford to split these bills in two—to split up Part 1 of the bill which says that these special housing area provisions need to be extended. This is because—and I will return to this in a minute—there is at least a small amount of value in that proposal albeit it very small. But Part 2 of the bill—which actually has nothing to do with Part 1 of the bill and they should not even be together at this point—should go to a select committee. What is the urgency Dr Smith? What is the urgency for Part 2 of the bill?Hon Dr Nick Smith: Getting houses built.GRANT ROBERTSON: "Getting houses built." he says. You have had 8 years and you have not shown any urgency. Why today on a provision that is significant? The provision is significant because it takes away the rights of certain New Zealanders. It could be justified; we need a debate about that. There is no way that a piece of legislation like this and as important as this should be blithely brought through under urgency.I went looking for the regulatory impact statement on this matter—on Part 2 of the bill—and found nothing on the Table of the House. But we do have the departmental disclosure statement on the bill as a whole and it makes for disturbing reading. That is because Part 2 of this bill changes the process in terms of the right of offer—Hon Dr Nick Smith: No it doesn't.GRANT ROBERTSON: Yes it does. Why are you putting it up Dr Smith if it does not change the process? Why is it in the House? Why are we all here? If you are not doing anything why is it in the law? He does not know does not have an answer and has not got a clue about what he is doing.What is worse is that in the departmental disclosure statement the Government is required to answer a series of questions—all departmental disclosure statements have to answer these questions. It says: "Part Four: Significant Legislature Features. Compulsory acquisition of private property. 4.1. Does this Bill contain any provisions that could result in the compulsory acquisition of private property?". Answer: "No". That is what the Minister and his department are telling his officials—he says: "No." Is that not precisely what you Dr Smith are trying to achieve with the bill—to say to people who may have had a right of offer back that they no longer do?Well if you do not like that one we will go further down the page in the departmental disclosure statement to where it says: "Significant decision-making powers. 4.6. Does this Bill create or amend a decision-making power to make a determination about a person's rights obligations or interests protected or recognised by law and that could have a significant impact on those rights obligations or interests?". The answer from the Minister: "No". He says: "No." That is categorically untrue Minister. You have misled your Cabinet colleagues because that is precisely what this provision in Part 2 does—Hon Dr Nick Smith: It doesn't.GRANT ROBERTSON: —and if it does not why is it here? Why have you put it in the law?Hon Dr Nick Smith: Read it.GRANT ROBERTSON: Read it? I have read it Dr Smith and what it does under Part 2 is it changes the way in which some people may believe that the Public Works Act applies to them in this law. Now Dr Smith this is the problem because what should be happening at the end of this debate is that this piece of legislation should be going off to a select committee. Maybe just maybe we can accept that Part 1 of the bill cannot do that because—despite being warned by Phil Goff in May that there were going to be problems with the special housing areas and the Auckland Unitary Plan—Dr Smith has waited until 6 September to come to us with an urgent law because the whole provisions around special housing areas expire on 15 September so maybe Part 1 passes the urgency threshold. Part 2 does not pass the urgency threshold.So Dr Smith here is your chance: split the bills in two. Part 1 comes through; many parties in this House will be able to support that. Part 2 goes to a select committee and the public will actually get to make some submissions on a fundamentally important change in law around whether or not there are offer-back provisions under the Public Works Act. The Public Works Act—and everyone in this House will have had some interaction with it during their time as a politician or beforehand—has a hierarchy in it. It has a process for the return of land or the offer back of land to the original owners. If that is changing—which presumably is the only reason you would put something in a law because if it is already the law you do not need to change it—that deserves proper scrutiny. That is a major change. That is about people's property rights which Dr Smith claimed today are not affected by this clause. They quite clearly are Dr Smith. You have misled your Cabinet colleagues and it is time to actually have a proper debate about this bill.The special housing areas promised so much from Dr Smith. They promised that they were going to be the panacea for Auckland's housing crisis in particular and yet we have seen such little action from them—around 1300 actual houses. During the period of time when National has been in office the deficit in housing has gone up by over 40000 houses and 163000 extra people have arrived in Auckland during that time and the Government has failed to keep up. In 2016 we are going to see what around 9600 houses built. That is still well below the 13000 houses that are required. If you look at it on a population basis we are getting around 6.3 consents for every 1000 people yet we need it to be up at around 13 or 14 consents which is what happened when the Labour Government under Norman Kirk took this seriously—Hon Dr Nick Smith: Did not.GRANT ROBERTSON: It is exactly what happened. We took this seriously the last time when Norman Kirk was the Prime Minister in the 1970s. What we needed—and if we were to be here under urgency it would be to have a comprehensive housing plan to build affordable homes to crack down on speculators and to actually build more State houses and not as this Government does avoid doing that because it is in the words of the Dominion Post today "fundamentally averse to building … state houses." Those members have got their ideological blinkers on and that is bad enough but if you add to that pushing through under urgency a fundamental change to the Public Works Act and how it applies it is a disgrace to use urgency this way from a failed and hopeless Government."