Sharples Pita: Affordable Housing: Enabling Territorial Authorities Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Sharples Pita: Affordable Housing: Enabling Territorial Authorities Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:649;Page:18463] 
Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 Ten years ago the Hikoi of Hope called on the Government and the community to urgently improve housing for low-income New Zealanders. The Government was advised that if we really want to be seen as a socially just nation we must recognise the link between housing and poverty and act appropriately on the issues in that sector. A decade later does this bill the Affordable Housing: Enabling Territorial Authorities Bill do it? 
Right on cue the social report was released last week and it provided the context with which to understand the importance of secure stable and safe housing. It is not a good-news story. It is a story of haves and have-nots—those who can afford to live well and those who cannot. There is of course the fact that some 15 percent of householders own an investment property and such properties include holiday homes rental properties timeshares and overseas properties. And then there are the others. 
Since the late 1980s the proportion of New Zealand householders spending more than 30 percent of their income on housing has literally hit the roof shooting up from 11 percent in 1988 to a massive 26 percent in 2007. For Maori households the decline in disposable income has become even more severe. The proportions of Maori spending over a third of their disposable income on housing had risen to 29 percent in 2007. 
Affordable housing is a cornerstone of any programme to reduce poverty. Affordable housing is essential to well-being. Without housing stability learning is hindered and opportunities for social and economic participation are seriously compromised. There is a lot at stake then in thinking about the range of mechanisms available to ensure that people on low to moderate incomes are able to access affordable housing. And so we were introduced in the range of submissions and effort put forward into defining exactly what we meant by affordable housing including the specific suggestions of “income-to-housing” cost ratios. 
This of course has long been the view that we know of with regard to the concept of poverty. New Zealand does not have an official poverty line. The arguments have been put forward by Statistics New Zealand—that it is too hard to set the level too hard to take account of geographical variation in living costs too hard to handle short-term periods of low income and too hard to adjust the measure over time. So with no poverty line how do we really know the extent of the poverty gripping our communities? 
The same will now apply to affordable housing. It is kept deliberately broad to enable territorial authorities to develop their own definitions to suit their own housing markets. It is this deliberate flexibility that we in the Maori Party have some qualms about. A little flexibility can be a dangerous thing. The context of this bill in enabling territorial authorities to address problems of housing affordability in their districts is one that essentially rests on the quality of relationships with mana whenua—whanau hapu and iwi. Of course we know that when iwi are perceived as investors the relationships with territorial authorities are suddenly conducted with great haste and respect for all parties involved. 
We were interested that the report of the Local Government and Environment Committee considered the possibility of amendments to the Resource Management Act for affordable housing. The Maori Party supports amendment of the Resource Management Act 1991 and the Local Government Act 2002 to strengthen the recognition and decision-making authority of local hapu and iwi in their region. We believe that that legislation needs amending to provide for appropriate representation of and engagement with mana whenua in decision making in their rohe. Such amendments would provide a more tangible way of spelling out the nature of the relationships sought with tangata whenua. The critical issue that concerns us is how mana whenua are involved in the design and discussions around affordable housing in their districts. 
But other relationships are at risk in this bill such as relationships with the so-called gated communities—relationships between gated communities and those who seek to live in social housing. Sarah Walker has produced an interesting paper that describes the effects of gated communities and their regulation in New Zealand. In that paper she describes the fortified pa of tangata whenua as the earliest example of gated communities. Fortified pa provided a stronghold and a sense of security in the knowledge that there was somewhere safe to run to to return to in times of trouble. It also meant that in the luxury of being separated out from potentially hostile “others” the community was a safe haven where people could be free to be Maori to protect each other to store their food and supplies and to enjoy their cultural activities. 
It is a fascinating context from which to consider the risks of simply importing another different group within the midst of gated communities. Pepper-potting State houses in the midst of say a retirement village is bound to create conflict and uneasy tension unless due attention is paid to relationships. The impact of high-density social housing developments must be comprehensively and carefully negotiated with our local communities if we are to achieve buy-in. 
I want to return to the very basis of the need for social housing. If we continue to accept that market forces will determine price in the supply-and-demand world then the poor will never ever be able to be safely and appropriately housed. The god of the market at whose altar we kneel will determine the sort of life we lead. But we must ask: is this right? Should this be so? High housing costs eat into the limited capacity of low-income households to meet basic needs such as food clothing transport medical care and education. 
We must ensure that the housing market is more efficient and fair. Direct assistance for low-income tenants enables a basic quality-of-living standard to be met. We know that community and social service agencies are seeing the real impact of increased accommodation costs on poverty. So we welcome the initiatives in retrofitting the Housing Innovation Fund and the developments the Minister has shared about renovating State houses and moving them on to land. I was pleased to learn about the efforts made in the Matahi Valley for the people of Tuhoe and the efforts made to ensure that a kuia in Nuhaka was able to enjoy better health and housing at the wonderful age of 92. 
But we must look past isolated examples to really understand the grim reality for so many New Zealanders that makes servicing a mortgage simply out of the realms of possibility. The pressures on people are already too immense to create further stress on households by adding ever-increasing mortgage repayments on to their already stretched budgets. 
We will support this bill though we are greatly concerned that low and moderate income earners should be entitled to benefit from affordable housing—but may not as very few tangata whenua have an income or two incomes of up to $80000. We are also very concerned to explore every possibility for innovation in expanding options for affordable housing. This is more than a matter of bricks and mortar; it is about quality relationships quality locations and quality decisions.