King AnnetteHon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour): This is the first call I have taken on Part 1 of this bill and I thought that it was important to take a call because I have been listening to the spin that the Government has been trying to put on this bill over the last 24 hours. The spin it is putting on is that Labour is opposed to building houses. Well I want the public out there to know that we are in favour of and would vote for Part 1 because even though it is inadequate in many ways we are the party that wants to build houses. It was Labour that put in place KiwiBuild—and what did the Government do? It laughed and scoffed at it and said we do not need a major building programme in New Zealand for affordable housing. Interestingly in 3 years with the price of houses going up and housing accords being put in place we now know that the house prices in Auckland—and also around New Zealand—have been going up and up beyond the ability for people to be able to pay. We know that we need to take measures and one of them is to build houses. As inadequate as this Part 1 is we would support it. But I have to say that I am very disappointed in the whole approach that is being taken here in Part 1. I go also as my colleague Chris Hipkins did to the regulatory impact statement. The reason why we are doing this under urgency particularly Part 1 is that it addresses the fact that developers—developers—have had insufficient time to lodge relevant consents to councils. So the reason why Part 1 is being rushed through is that they have had insufficient time. When were these brought into being? Well a very significant date actually: 13 September 2013—13 September; somebody's birthday is on that date. Three years ago the housing accords were brought in under legislation—3 years ago—and developers have had insufficient time to lodge? What they have lodged is land that they want to land bank. They want to ensure that they can ratchet up the price of that land. So why knowing that this was brought in 3 years ago are we now trying to extend it—in urgency—to give the developers more time? I want to ask the Minister in the chair Paul Goldsmith: what guarantee has the Government got that developers who have not had sufficient time will now have sufficient time? How many developers have told the Government they intend to lodge under the special housing accord? I want to know the number because for the Government to have this in a regulatory impact statement it must have done some research. It must have done some consulting; it must have done some work. What ministerial work was undertaken to find out that the developers had insufficient time? Minister if you have not got that information from your officials now—and I know you are only the Minister in the chair at the moment—I suggest you turn to your officials and ask what evidence they have got that developers had insufficient time. What was delaying them? Why were they delayed in putting it in? Did they not think it important enough? Did they think that if they waited long enough the silly Government would expand the time that they could do this for another 3 years? So Minister I would like you to get on your hind legs and tell us what evidence you have got for what is in this regulatory impact statement because this is the official regulatory impact statement on this bill so I would like to know the answer to that. I also want to know why the Government would not accept Supplementary Order Paper 212 put forward by my colleague Phil Twyford which related to ensuring that any building in special housing areas has affordable housing. Why would you not include a requirement to have affordable housing? All this will do is extend the time for special housing areas and enable people—developers who have not had enough time—to be able to get their plans ready to build massive big houses over 2000 square metres with en suites and four bedrooms which are beyond the price range of New Zealanders. The average New Zealander working hard cannot afford to pay the cost of houses and the average in Auckland is now at a million dollars. Suddenly all those homeowners who are the lucky ones who own are millionaires and there are many looking through the window saying: Why can't we afford a house?". Why does the Government not include affordable housing in Part 1?"