Affordable Housing: Enabling Territorial Authorities Bill

Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Defence) Link to this

I move, That the Affordable Housing: Enabling Territorial Authorities Bill be now read a second time. In doing so, I would like to thank the chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee, Moana Mackey, and members of the committee for their hard work on this bill. I would also like to thank all of those who made submissions on the bill. The committee considered 78 submissions on the original bill, and the considerable thought and effort put in by the submitters and the committee have helped to improve the bill. The majority of the committee recommended that the bill be passed with some amendments.

This bill provides new powers to enable territorial authorities to increase the supply of affordable housing in their area. The bill fits in with other work that the Government has undertaken to improve housing affordability in New Zealand. The way that territorial authorities use the powers in the bill will vary across the country, depending on local affordable housing needs. International and New Zealand experience shows that the new tools will be effective in helping territorial authorities to achieve a range of goals, such as housing essential workers on modest incomes.

The bill is enabling, rather than mandatory. Only those territorial authorities that want to, need to develop an affordable housing policy. The bill requires a territorial authority to carry out a housing needs assessment, so that it has a clear picture of housing needs in the area, before using the powers provided in the bill. Based on that assessment, a territorial authority can develop an affordable housing policy that sets out how it will respond to local housing needs. Territorial authorities must consult their community before adopting any housing policy.

The bill will prevent the use of covenants on land or property titles where one of a covenant’s purposes is to stop the provision of social or affordable housing. Such covenants unfairly discriminate against some of our most vulnerable people. There was unanimous support for that clause by the select committee, which recommended a slight change that will strengthen it.

As the bill’s policy objective is to provide a workable tool for those territorial authorities that elect to develop affordable housing policies, the select committee has endeavoured to ensure that the concerns of local government are reflected in the suggested amendments to the bill. For example, the select committee has simplified the requirements of the bill by removing clauses that duplicate provisions of the Local Government Act, and also by replacing six separate clauses with one simple clause regarding the process for developing and implementing affordable housing policies. The bill has also been amended to be more closely aligned with the Local Government Act.

Those territorial authorities that would like further guidance on, and assistance in, using the powers that will be available under this legislation following its enactment can contact Housing New Zealand Corporation, which will arrange for them to receive appropriate advice and information.

This bill balances the need of the community for affordable housing with developers’ needs for consistent and predictable planning guidelines and with the property rights of individuals. The bill promotes housing choice by ensuring that a range of housing types, tenures, and costs to meet the needs of moderate-income households are being included in new developments. I commend the bill to the House.

PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) Link to this

The National Party has been under tremendous pressure to vote against this legislation. The pressure has come from builders, district councils across the country, developers across the country, and community organisations involved in housing affordability issues and the provision of affordable housing to first-home buyers and even to those renting. This legislation, on the face of it, seemed like a good idea 6 or 7 months ago, but when questions were asked about the detail, it appeared that the legislation would drive property prices for first-home buyers even higher than they are today. It seemed the legislation would not help first-home buyers in the long run, at all.

National Party members were very, very concerned, particularly when local authorities, mainly smaller local authorities across the country, told us they are already struggling with their statutory responsibilities. The legislation that has been pouring out of central government in recent years has meant that local authorities have had to go to their ratepayers, cap in hand, year after year, to ask for additional rates in order to deal with the growth in their own bureaucracies. Costs have been imposed on them because of the extra legislation coming out of this place. Local authorities have told us they do not want more legislation that will oblige them to spend ratepayers’ money. They have said that the resources they would need to undertake, for example, a housing needs assessment are too much in addition to what they already have to do. They have said also there is no proven gain for their local communities.

This legislation puts another layer of expectation upon councils, in their view. It is another expectation that communities will have of them, and it is another responsibility that central government has imposed upon them, and they do not need more compliance costs. That is what local authorities had to say at the Local Government and Environment Committee, and certainly that is what they said to the media. In fact, very few local authorities were happy about this legislation.

Interestingly we know that the genesis of this legislation came from activities undertaken by the Queenstown Lakes District Council. It has an affordable housing programme whereby developers and builders, when undertaking a development, set aside some of that land and it goes into a land portfolio to be used for affordable housing initiatives. The reason they need that down there, of course, is that the cost of housing and renting is so high for people on average incomes, or those we expect would normally be able to afford housing—people such as nurses, policemen, teachers, and those in the hospitality industry, which the Queenstown lakes district relies on so much. At the select committee we asked how, without legislation, the Queenstown Lakes District Council was able to set up a programme whereby developers set aside an amount of their land to go into such a pool.

We asked how it was able to do that without legislation, because it begs the question of why we need this legislation. Why do we need to legislate to ensure that councils go through these responsibilities, and go cap in hand to the ratepayers to pay for these additional compliance costs, when the Queenstown Lakes District Council is doing this activity already? The answer from that district council is that it would have preferred to have more clarity, and that it was difficult at times to work through its processes, but it did it without this legislation—and other councils could, as well.

The interesting thing is that Maryan Street, the Minister in charge of the bill, said that the bill would drive down costs for first-home buyers. But what this legislation does is force builders and developers to set aside a portion of their land and give it to trusts for affordable housing. So they might have to carve off 10 percent of their land and not sell it but, essentially, give it to an affordable housing trust. Instead of giving land, they could write out a big cheque and put it into the trust, and that could be used for affordable housing.

That sounds great on the face of it, and it certainly sounds great for that trust, but the problem is that builders and developers then have to somehow make up that loss. They make up that loss by selling the sections they retain at a higher price because, quite frankly, they have mortgages to pay too. When builders and developers buy land they have to pay interest, they have to pay rates, and they have to pay for the development of that land, and if we take away a portion of that land—particularly if it is as high a value as 10 percent—then, clearly, they have to get those gains from elsewhere. So on the 90 percent of land they retain, they have to make greater profits in order to cover those costs. So the cost for the sections in the other 90 percent goes up, and the cost of housing overall will go up. Again, we have a problem there. That is why builders and developers oppose this legislation, and we can understand why that is the case. So there we have it. Local authorities are objecting to this legislation, builders and developers are objecting to it, and many of those involved in community housing objected to it at the select committee.

Members of the select committee were also very interested in another matter raised in this bill. It is certainly associated with housing but not necessarily with the issue of first-home buyers. It is the intention in the legislation to void covenants that restrict the provision of affordable public or institutional housing within a residential development. That was intended to address problems such as we see in Auckland, and Housing New Zealand Corporation gave us examples of where developers have put covenants over their developments saying that social housing cannot be placed within that area. For example, Housing New Zealand Corporation homes, or houses provided by other social housing providers, cannot be in those particular developments.

We could understand why there was an intention in the legislation to do that. We note, however, that exceptionally large-scale or high-density social housing developments do need local community support in order to succeed. So if we have a development where there are, say, a hundred or a couple of hundred houses, then surely we would want some sort of community consultation where half of them—say, fifty or a hundred—are Housing New Zealand Corporation houses. It is not a minor thing. It is a minor thing where we have two, three, or 10 State houses in a subdivision, and covenants surely should not be passed in those cases. But where there are hundreds of State houses in a particular development, that is a very significant step indeed, and we would want community buy-in and consultation in that case. So although we support the intention in the legislation to void covenants that restrict the provision of affordable housing, or public or institutional housing, we note that exceptionally large-scale or high-density social housing developments require community support and buy-in in order to succeed, and we make that note here in our speeches tonight.

This legislation does not address the real cost-drivers of housing supply. Meeting residential land needs, making sure that enough land zoned is for residential housing, beating back over-regulation—particularly where it comes from the Resource Management Act and the Building Act—and streamlining the planning and consent processes are key issues that need to be addressed. It must also be remembered that take-home pay pays the mortgage, and the higher taxes that we have seen year on year under this Government do not help the value of take-home pay. People are getting less in their back pocket to service a mortgage. It is take-home pay that counts, and only lower taxes will improve the situation and put more money in the back pockets of those who want to pay off their mortgages. Of course, interest rates also need to be brought under control, and there is no way that that will happen when we continue to see the low-quality spending that this Government has put into various services across the country.

LESLEY SOPER (Labour) Link to this

Well, it does not surprise me at all that the previous speaker from the National Party, Phil Heatley, opposes so vehemently the Affordable Housing: Enabling Territorial Authorities Bill. It does not surprise me at all when one considers that any bill with the words “affordable housing” in its title would seem to be anathema to the National Party. It does not surprise me at all to see that the National Party would be opposing a bill that seeks to create more choice and opportunity for families by giving councils some flexibility to promote a wider variety of house sizes, ownership models, and costs in the new home market. Why does it not surprise me that National, which brought in market rentals for State houses, sold 13,000 State houses, and devastated the housing market, should come into this House and oppose this very good affordable housing bill?

It does not surprise me that those members are back to their old tricks of the 1990s once more. What those members do not like is the fact that this bill provides new powers to enable territorial authorities to increase the supply of affordable housing in their local areas, and to do the sorts of good things that the Queenstown Lakes District Council has struggled to do. That is another very good thing that territorial authorities will be able to do under this bill, and they will be able to take an easier path to do it. The fact is that this bill enables other territorial authorities—without the same problems and in consultation with their community—to require persons doing developments to facilitate the provision of affordable housing to low and moderate income households in a way that encourages that range of housing sizes, tenures, and costs.

The bill fits with other work that the Government has undertaken to improve housing affordability in New Zealand, and that is why the National Party finds it anathema. Those members do not like the idea that this Government has had successes in that area. When we consider the other initiatives that are under way—

JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) Link to this

I have to say that it shows how much the Government really believes in this legislation when it gets the Minister who has let the Defence Force run down to an absolute shambles, and who allows prisoners out of prisons every day, to come down to read a speech on it for about 2 minutes, because he would not have a blind clue about this bill. The member Phil Goff would not have one iota of understanding. To make it even worse, the Government puts up a lightweight member called Lesley Soper, whom they brought into the House and who was then kicked out because she could not get high enough up on the list. The Government has brought her back and she will be kicked out again.

PITA PARAONE (NZ First) Link to this

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. I stand on behalf of New Zealand First to say that we will support this bill. I start by saying that New Zealand First has always been of the mind that all New Zealanders should have access to affordable homes. Owning one’s home has always been part of the Kiwi dream, and we would like that to remain so. Unfortunately, the dream has become a nightmare for many people who have come to realise that access to affordable housing, which earlier generations of New Zealanders enjoyed, is no longer available to them. The fact that we here in New Zealand are at the end of the global economic food chain, so to speak, has seen the downturn in other economies impact on our own. The New Zealand Institute of Economic Research recently reported in its last quarterly prediction that gross domestic product was likely to decline for three consecutive quarters. It went on to say that inflation is still a problem and would therefore impact on a return to robust economic health. Having said that, I believe it is still the Government’s responsibility, irrespective of who might be occupying the Treasury benches, to ensure that this country’s citizens are suitably housed and that incentives are provided to do this.

We in New Zealand First believe that this bill will provide that incentive, which I regard as being a beginning. House prices have left a large number of people on modest incomes unable to compete in the current housing market. The bill is intended to help provide additional supply-side tools for local government in order to complement the housing supply-and-demand measures that central government already provides. As the Minister who opened the debate this evening said, costs vary amongst the territorial authorities around the country, and therefore the cost of housing will also vary.

I heard reference made to Queenstown and the belief that this bill will not solve the problem that Queenstown is possibly facing. However, the responsibility does fall on that local authority to ensure that in order to maintain its position as one of the leading tourist centres in the country, it must look after its service workers. If it wants to attract service workers to the region and wants them to stay there to be able to cater for the demands that tourism brings to the area, then it will certainly have to have a plan that will provide affordable housing for those people.

New Zealand First recognises that this bill is a stand-alone bill that dovetails with other legislation. The bill’s purpose is to enable territorial authorities, in consultation with their communities, to require developers to facilitate the provision of affordable housing. We have heard comments this evening that developers are opposing the notion of this bill. I say that given the economic climate at the moment, I have heard of developers actually approaching the Government to see whether the Government will purchase sections from them to provide State housing. I think that that is the consequence of being at the end of the economic food chain, which I alluded to earlier.

I do not want to take too much time other than to say that this bill is just one of the many tools that will be available to provide affordable housing to our citizens, and I reiterate our support for this bill. Kia ora.

SUE BRADFORD (Green) Link to this

The Green Party will be supporting the Affordable Housing: Enabling Territorial Authorities Bill through its second reading and remaining stages in the House today. I have to say, however, that ours is somewhat lukewarm support. Although we are keen to see local councils encouraged to support the development of affordable housing within their districts and to end the use of covenants designed to restrict the availability of affordable housing within developments, we believe that this bill is a missed opportunity in terms of doing something a lot more meaningful.

We have a housing crisis in this country right now. Just a couple of weeks ago I took part in a hui on housing in Northland at which representatives of numerous iwi and community organisations talked about the realities of increasing numbers of forced mortgagee sales, sometimes because of ridiculously low actual arrears. They talked of private rentals being too high for people to afford, even in traditionally low-cost areas like Kaitāia and Kaikohe, and of people living under canvas and in sheds, caravans, and other insecure and inadequate forms of shelter because those were their only options.

This morning the New Zealand Herald carried the story of Auckland City councillor Paul Goldsmith, who is asking Parliament to widen police powers to allow them to forcibly move rough sleepers along. At the same time, Diane Robertson, from the Auckland City Mission, talked about the problem in a rather more productive way, saying that the real answer is to give people somewhere adequate and appropriate to live. Both responses highlight the problems of people sleeping out in Auckland City. It is not a new issue, but it is one that does not look like going away any time soon, unless there is a concerted response from the Government, local government, and the community sector to ensure that the housing needs of those most in need are met.

Councillor Goldsmith’s “blame the victim” response is as old as time. It is reminiscent of Beijing’s recent clearance of its streets and slums for the Olympics or, closer to home, of the bid to remove the homeless from the streets, parks, and open spaces of Auckland when APEC came to town in 1999.

The need for safe, secure, healthy, and affordable housing starts at this extreme end, with those who are literally homeless and out on the streets right now—and there are many more of them in Aotearoa in 2008 than some might imagine—and it goes through to those who are among the 9,000 or 10,000 households on the State house waiting lists, to those who are living in substandard or inadequate housing but cannot get on the waiting lists at all, and to those who are working as hard as they can but are failing to get together the money to buy a home. The inability of so many to afford or to access accommodation, either rented or bought, is a reality that this and the next Government must face.

This bill takes a very small step towards at least enabling local territorial authorities to implement and enforce affordable housing policies in new developments, where they have the will to do so. It was interesting to see that so many local government submitters had doubts about the bill, although I have to say that a lot of these seemed to be driven more by fears of the costs of taking up affordable housing plans rather than by any analysis of the bill’s inadequacies in terms of meeting real housing needs. In the Auckland region, for example, five out of six councils opposed the bill, with only the Waitakere City Council supporting it while taking the position that the bill should go further and make affordable housing compulsory for all districts.

Other organisations found the bill inadequate, too. For example, the Salvation Army opposed the bill, despite its unquestionable interest in, and commitment to, affordable housing. It submitted that it saw the bill as lacking in terms of containing any particularly meaningful response to the crisis it deals with daily through its social services arms. Like the Waitakere City Council, the Salvation Army sought, among other things, a requirement that local authorities must give consideration to local housing affordability issues in their planning and policy development.

The Green Party came very close to opposing the bill as well, but in the end we decided that we would continue to support it, partly because of some small improvements achieved at the Local Government and Environment Committee, and partly because anything that supports and encourages councils to at least consider the development of affordable housing has to be better than nothing. We also see the clause on covenants, with the improvement made at the select committee, as being critical. Clause 35(1) now states: “A covenant over land is void if one of its purposes is to stop the provision of affordable housing or social housing on the land.” We are keen to ensure that this becomes law as soon as possible.

However, what we would really like to see soon is a major commitment from the Government to real solutions. The Greens, like the Waitakere City Council and the Salvation Army, would like to see all local councils adopt housing affordability policies, along with a greater commitment to land banking and to the retention of any social housing that they already own. We would like the Housing New Zealand Corporation, local councils, and the community sector to work together to increase the social housing stock available in areas of need that is provided through all three sectors.

The private market is not able to meet the housing needs of everyone in this country, as is all too apparent at present. We believe that both central government and local government have a responsibility to take a lead on these issues. Central government funding should be available to assist local councils to carry out effective planning and to meet social housing needs, but this funding should not be available unless they have developed an affordable housing plan in genuine consultation with their local community. I hope that the next time we are discussing an affordable housing bill in this Parliament, it will be a lot more serious than the one in front of us today.

Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Māori Party) Link to this

Ten years ago the Hīkoi 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 Māori households the decline in disposable income has become even more severe. The proportions of Māori 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 Māori 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—whānau, hapū, 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 Māori 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 hapū 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 pā of tangata whenua as the earliest example of gated communities. Fortified pā 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 Māori, 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 Matahī Valley for the people of Tūhoe and the efforts made to ensure that a kuia in Nūhaka 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 $80,000. 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.

JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) Link to this

I stand on behalf of United Future to oppose, sadly, the second reading of the Affordable Housing: Enabling Territorial Authorities Bill. United Future supported this bill going to the Local Government and Environment Committee, and we had very high hopes that the Government was making a real effort to address a genuine problem. United Future has gone on record historically as saying it wishes that this 2008 election was being fought around the issue of affordable housing—that both National and Labour would be trying to outdo each other in putting forward to voters some really workable options to increase homeownership for middle and low income New Zealanders. So we are very disappointed to have reached a point where we can no longer support this bill.

I have to say that I am a little surprised that the Māori Party is supporting the bill. That party has gone on record on numerous occasions in this House in support of people’s property rights. This bill has the ability to seriously breach the rights of property owners and put demands on them in a way that I think is inconsistent with the stands that party has taken on previous issues.

This bill provides, but does not demand, that territorial authorities, should they wish, can develop some affordable housing policy at a local level. It is really clear from the feedback from local government that some territorial authorities are already doing this. They are the ones that have been looking for a little bit of legislative support to continue what they are doing, and we acknowledge that. But a whole lot of territorial authorities are currently quite uninterested, and they are particularly uninterested in some of the options that are put before us in this bill.

If a territorial authority chooses to consult, as it is required to do first of all, and to set up a scheme to offer affordable housing options, it is then able to put some quite strong demands on property developers, forcing them to make available some of their land for affordable housing. Territorial authorities have always had the option of providing incentives through lower compliance costs and a number of other mechanisms to incentivise those options, but what they would get out of this bill, if they so choose, is the ability to actually impose that type of provision on to a property owner and a property developer. We think that is a very sad option.

I questioned the Minister and she kindly gave me a briefing, because I wanted to try to get my head around how this could play itself out at a local level. I asked the Minister whether the bill, in the way it has been written, could, for instance, stop a local council showing preferential treatment to one developer over another, making no demands on one property developer—making no requirement that it set aside land for affordable housing—but choosing to put requirements on another developer within its territorial authority. She admitted that, yes, it was quite possible under this legislation for preferential treatment to be given to developers within a territorial authority. So already we start to see some real flaws that could happen off the back of this bill, should it pass in its current form.

Another concern mentioned in the commentary on the bill as it has been reported back from the select committee is around the adequacy statement, because the regulatory impact assessment unit does not consider that this proposal meets the consultation requirements for regulatory impact analysis. Really, if there is any strength to this proposal, it is that the territorial authority, in setting up an affordable housing scheme, is required to do some consultation with its constituents. That is a good requirement, but some concern is expressed by the regulatory impact assessment unit that it does not believe the provisions as stated in the bill currently are sufficient to mean that the consultation process is done in a way that is helpful.

I was interested to find out from the Minister why she had chosen to set up a separate bill rather than to amend the Resource Management Act and/or the Local Government Act 2002. Certainly, the commentary on the bill gives some reasons around that. Apparently, the Local Government Act 2002 could not be used in its present form to require developers to contribute towards affordable housing, and territorial authorities obviously wanted the flexibility and the choice as to whether they opted into these provisions in the legislation. So it will depend on where people live in New Zealand and on the priority set by their local authority as to whether this legislation will even have application and provide affordable housing options for them. A huge amount of choice is given to territorial authorities. However, once they decide to take advantage of the provisions of this bill, then I think a lot of problems could kick in, particularly for property developers, in a way that United Future feels breach the very principles that we as a party have based ourselves on.

United Future is committed—along with other parties in this House—in seeing what can be done to improve affordable housing options in New Zealand. Right now in New Zealand we face a housing crisis. It is increasingly difficult for first home owners to get their proverbial foot on that first rung, and much more can be done. Most of us bought our first house with Government assistance. Short-term loans were given to kick-start our deposit. The family benefit could be capitalised. Historically, there have been a whole lot of helpful mechanisms.

United Future, for instance, would like to explore the option of capitalising Working for Families payments. A whole lot of things could have been considered by this Government, and we are very disappointed that it has limited itself to hitting property developers rather than putting forward a bill that could have included a whole lot of other really excellent options that we would have been able to support. We are sorry to have to pull our support at this time.

SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) Link to this

I am absolutely delighted to speak on behalf of National in opposing the Affordable Housing: Enabling Territorial Authorities Bill. This is another piece of very, very poor legislation. It follows on from a litany of poor legislation put through the House by this Government. It asked the first question: “What’s the problem we’re trying to fix?”, and, yes, there is a problem around affordable housing. But did it do any rigorous analysis about what the cause of that problem was? Of course it did not, because those members opposite are too jolly lazy as a Government to take even one look at the real causes relating to affordable housing.