Carter John: Affordable Housing: Enabling Territorial Authorities Bill — First Reading 
Carter John: Affordable Housing: Enabling Territorial Authorities Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:644;Page:13895] 
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) 
: 
 What a laugh that is! 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Is he still here? 
JOHN CARTER 
: Here I am again and I will be here a hell of a lot longer believe you me. 
The problem with the Affordable Housing: Enabling Territorial Authorities Bill and why I want to speak on it is that when we read this legislation we see that it does nothing. That is the sad part about it. I listened carefully to the speeches made by my friend and colleague Ron Mark and also to those of Sue Bradford and Hone Harawira. I was interested in Sue Bradford’s speech because it was quite negative about the bill and its likely outcomes. Ron Mark raised some serious questions about the bill. Hone Harawira raised issues about the need for affordable housing and then asked whether this bill would achieve it. 
This bill is just typical of a Government that is failing which brings this sort of legislation into an election year as window dressing. It is disappointing to think that the smaller parties might support this bill not because of what its intention is but because of what it will actually do. When we study it carefully we see that it will achieve nothing at all other than to put significant costs on to the ratepayers of this country. 
That is the issue that concerns me because we know this Government has put huge costs into local government over the time it has been in Government. This Government has passed 69 different pieces of legislation that have caused costs to local government and to ratepayers and that have caused a rates revolt. The Government has had to have a study on the issue of rating but quite honestly it has done nothing with regard to that at all. But here they are passing more legalisation; if there is a cost at all—and there will be—it will be imposed on the ratepayers of New Zealand. 
Let me take the House through the way that will happen and what this bill is going to achieve. My view is that the end result will achieve nothing. The bill basically says that if there is to be affordable housing the first step that has to happen is that the local authority has to do some research to find out whether there is a need for affordable housing. That is strange. In the area that Hone Harawira and I represent for instance we both know there is a need for affordable housing so I ask the House why we need legislation that asks that question and that says to local authorities “You have to go and research to see whether the area that you represent needs affordable housing.” We do not need a law to find that out; local authorities already have the ability to go and find that out and some of them do. We do not need to pass more legislation under urgency to do that. We do not need legislation that tells them to go and do that—if they want to.  
The second thing is the research which will cause costs bureaucracy— 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Rates. 
JOHN CARTER 
: Of course it will hit ratepayers. What happens then? For local authorities if they find out much to their surprise that they need the ability to do something in regard to affordable housing the next step is that they have to put that into their long-term council community plans. We know what that process means. It means that it goes into the books it means there are rounds and rounds of consultation and it means there are discussions and opportunities to object and to debate and to have meetings. So we will have not just 1 year of research but probably at least another 2 years after that of going through the long-term council community plans of the local authorities. 
If this bill passes and goes through in 2008 and we have not done anything about it by 2011 all we have found out is that maybe there is a need for some affordable housing—well hello! Do we not know that already? If it is done by 2011 and gets through the councils’ long-term council community plans they will say “Yes we are going to address the issue.” The issue then will be that we will have done nothing other than cost ratepayers a lot of money discover something we probably already knew and spend 3 years finding that out. I say that that is a waste of this Parliament’s time a waste of ratepayers’ time and a waste for the people who actually needed some help. That is the first thing. 
We must also remember that we are talking about costs to ratepayers because the Government is putting nothing at all into this affordable housing bill—not a sausage; it is totally the responsibility of local government. I ask those members on that side of the House what consultation they have done with local authorities on this bill. I ask the small parties whether they have asked that question. I ask Ron Mark of New Zealand First whether that party has asked the Government whether it has actually consulted with local government on this. I can tell members the answer as to that consultation; the answer is “Not a stitch.” Local authorities are bemused by yet another cost. I ask Sue Bradford whether she asked the Government about what research it was doing with local authorities. I can tell members that the answer is “None.” Local authorities are not happy with that because they know that the bill will put more cost on them. 
We have got to the stage where we have put the whole thing through research and we have done at least a couple of years of long-term council community plans so now we have to go through the audit process. The audit process costs local government and ratepayers a whole lot more money. So far then we have caused a whole lot of bureaucracy and cost to ratepayers for research and we have had to go through the consultation of the long-term council community plans at the cost of ratepayers and a whole lot of time and bureaucracy and now that we are going through the audit process—at more cost to the ratepayers—the Government still has not put a stitch in. Michael Cullen is sitting there with his pockets bulging with money but not one stitch of a dollar is going to address the issue of affordable housing. He is happy to make sure that the ratepayers of this country pay when they are already stretched. Then having done all that someone will say they are not happy with the legislation and it had better be taken to the Environment Court. That will mean more cost. By the year 2011 and going maybe into 2012 or longer the Government will still not have paid one stitch—not put in a cent or a penny.  
The poor ratepayers of this country will have been asked to address an issue but no one will have a house. Not one house will have been built at this time. All these people who need affordable housing will still be hanging in saying “In 2008 the Government put up a window-dressing bill trying to garner some support. But it is just a political ploy.” And Government members will be going out and saying “Aren’t we lovely; we are worried about you. We have got a bill called affordable housing”—that is what they’ll say—“we have passed all this legislation to help you because you need an affordable home.” They will not tell people they will have to hang on 4 or 5 years and continue living in their tents and caravans. The Government will not tell people that it is not putting money in but is expecting the ratepayers of this country to provide the funding. The Government will not tell people that it might never happen. The Government will say: “We are a good Government and we are making affordable housing affordable. We have passed a bill. We know you have a need. We don’t care if it costs the ratepayers of this country a whole lot of money.” 
This bill is good for the Labour Government because it will stand on the stage and say that it is doing something. Well that is a joke and it will be exposed. I hope the small parties change their minds about supporting this bill.