Parker DavidHon DAVID PARKER (Labour): Before I address why we need this transitional provision can I say that I agree with other members who have said that this bill is inadequate to deal with the issues that are facing New Zealand in housing. I agree with something that Julie Anne Genter said: that these problems have become so problematic in New Zealand that they are causing economy-wide effects not just having an effect on the housing market.The problems are so problematic that they are causing problems beyond the housing market. It is true that some of the marginal price pressure comes from overseas buyers. It is true that that is driving demand for New Zealand currency which is higher than it would otherwise be. It is true that it is suppressing the value of our exports and increasing our current account deficit. It is also true that it is distorting the investment signal within New Zealand so that more money is going into speculative asset classes and not enough is going to productive asset classes.Having said that I want to address another point that I do not think has been properly addressed. I want the Minister for Building and Housing to explain why we are having to do this piece of legislation—why—when the special housing areas did not come into creation until after the plan-making process was legislated for the Auckland Plan. Why was it not contemplated at the time of the special housing legislation that there was a need to ensure that the plans that were going to be made for the special housing areas would not be cut across by the Auckland Plan? As the explanatory note says—in the third dot point—the purpose of this bill is to allow plan change requests made but not completed under the [Special Housing Areas] Act to continue when proposed district plans become operative:".So the first time that that could have been fixed was when the special housing legislation was passed to have made that clear. The Minister shakes his head. It could have been done that way Minister. You know that that is correct. The second way it could have been fixed is that one of the many arms of Government—one of the many billions of dollars that the Government spends every year could have been spent on making a submission to the Auckland Plan's hearing panel that it should have made provision for the protection of planning processes that were under way in—[Interruption] They could have. Again the Minister shakes his head. Of course it could have gone to those people who were hearing that and they could have said "Please don't cut across the plans that are halfway through or about to be lodged or give us a transitional period of 3 years." which is the transitional period that it wants under this legislation. It could have at least asked the planning authority in Auckland to put the same provision in the Auckland Plan.That would have been far cheaper. The Government would not have to be coming to Parliament and pushing this through under urgency. The Minister shakes his head as if this could not have been done by the Auckland Plan if it had wanted to. The Auckland Plan could have said that in respect of areas that are special housing areas the planning process that is under way in respect of those under the special housing legislation shall have an effect for another 3 years. It could have done that. The Minister shakes his head and said: "Did they apply?". Did you try? Did anyone from the Government go to the planning authority?Hon Dr Nick Smith: It would be unlawful.Hon DAVID PARKER: It would have been unlawful? Rubbish. It would not have been unlawful. It would not have been unlawful for someone to turn up and say "We need the planning processes that we've started for the special housing areas to continue." and they could have said that in respect of the special housing areas this planning provision will apply—i.e. the one that we are doing.Phil Twyford: Amy Adams made a submission.Hon DAVID PARKER: Amy Adams made a submission but the Minister for Building and Housing did not—the Minister for Building and Housing did not. I am aghast that it did not get it right in the original Act. It did not get it right in submissions on the plan and therefore the hearings commissioners do not even address it in their plan—they do not even address it in their plan. Do they address it in their plan?Hon Dr Nick Smith: You are just incorrect.Hon DAVID PARKER: But they do not address it in there. I bet they did not because the Government did not ask them to. I would like the Minister to explain why it was that they did not submit on the plan and protect these planning provisions in the special housing areas. I cannot understand why that did not occur. There were two avenues—"