Resource Legislation Amendment Bill – Committee Stage (16) – Part 1

Resource Legislation Amendment Bill – Committee Stage (16) – Part 1

Articles, Blog , , 0 Comments


complexities some issues into the future sir and I look forward to hearing from the minister on the meta felt eyford chip I want to talk about clauses 11 and 12 in part one and what they do mr. chairman is that they introduce a new function for councils regional councils and territorial authorities under the RMA requiring those bodies to ensure that there is quite sufficient residential and business development capacity that’s clauses 11 and 12 and the idea behind this is that the council’s will be required to ensure that there is a pipeline of development really land through in the medium and longer term and it’s designed to I think it’s designed in the eyes of the minister at least to ensure that there is a sufficient quantity of development really land to make urban land markets more competitive but what I want to say mr. chairman is that this illustrates the kind of poverty of thinking behind this ministers approach to urban land markets and in reform out of the famine a famine of good ideas and good policy thinking that’s right and I and I want to also in this contribution mr. chairman speak to David Parker’s two supplementary all the papers one of them is on the basically it inserts a requirement for a national policy statement on urban growth and the second is about introducing infrastructure bonds and I want to explain why these two supplementary order papers must go together and why they are a far superior alternative to the approach contained in clauses 11 and 12 of part 1 of the bill so clauses living in 12 as I said a designed to ensure that there’s enough of a so-called pipeline of available development reading and and and that approach also is reflected in the minister’s national policy statement on development human development capacity but the fallacy behind the thinking is that by requiring councils to provide a pipeline of future urban land that somehow that’s going to increase the supply and therefore bring prices down what we see in Auckland shows that this approach won’t work and it’s why when the minister published his national policy statement on urban development capacity Auckland Council and in fact all the other high-growth councils said no problem it’s basically business as usual it won’t change what we do because in the case of Auckland it’s often said the council has owned land the size of Hamilton and therefore we’re fine well it’s not fine because as the Productivity Commission and other commentators have said all that does and under the current policy settings is drip-feed bits of land progressively into what is a highly a supercharged speculative urban land market and it makes no difference whatsoever to the crippling lehigh urban land prices that are at the heart of the problem that we’ve got the solution that is embodied in David Parker’s supplementary order paper on a national policy statement on urban growth is to create a super abundance of development opportunities both for people to build up and also for the city to grow out in order to make room for growth and it’s only by creating that super abundance of development opportunities that in an urban land market like walk-ins there’s any possibility of actually bringing urban land prices down and what David Parker supplementary order paper would do is require next month to do something that he he could have done years ago instead of putting the house through all of this and all the other expensive and complicated tinkering that the minister has applied to the RMA over the years and that is to publish a national policy statement that would direct high growth councils to get rid of the urban growth boundary and replace it with more intensive spatial planning that would protect areas of special value ecological and other value that would acquire land for future infrastructure transport on otherwise that would set aside public open spaces for future generations and then allow mr. chairman allow development to take place in the growth corridors as long as and this is the big proviso as long as the infrastructure costs mr. chairman final call as long as the infrastructure costs of that new development can be fully carried by that development so that the taxpayer and rate payer and not being asked to subsidize development in places where it might be expensive to develop like far out on the fringes and that is why the companion supplementary order paper on infrastructure bonds is necessary because we need to find ways of financing and allowing the provision of infrastructure to support new development because the current system is broken and it’s not possible to get rid of the urban growth boundary and replace it with a smarter way to manage urban growth unless you crack this problem of infrastructure financing it goes right to the heart of it because after all the urban growth boundary is a proxy for the better for the difference between lands letters service by infrastructure or can be serviced by infrastructure and land that cannot answer that is why these two supplementary order papers that I’m sure David Parker was very flattered actually that that david seymour having voted against these two amendments back on the sixth of September this is the journals of the House of Representative and according to the journals of the House of Representatives those two amendments failed by one vote a single vote a single extra vote would have meant that those these two amendments that have now resurfaced as David Parker supplementary order papers they would have been passed into law on the night of tuesday the sixth of September if David seen word voted for them and through some strange some strange rip in the time-space continuum those two same amendments have reappeared in the name of david seymour on the table of this house tonight I don’t I it’s very disconcerting that this kind of thing can happen it questions my all all ones assumptions about the way the universe operates but never mind about the plagiarism of david seymour but if he’s come tonight willing to vote for David Packers and supplementary order papers to get rid of the urban growth boundary to replace it with a smarter way of delivering urban planning that protects the built environment but opens up a super abundance of development opportunities that would drive down urban land costs something probably if the National Party MP has paid attention to it they would probably want to support that but this minister who spent the last decade blaming the RMA for expensive urban land and expensive housing for some reason he doesn’t support this policy I don’t know why I don’t know why but he doesn’t but labour does we stand for more competitive urban land markets because we know there’s a better way of allowing our cities to grow in the Productivity Commission they advocate they advocate more competitive urban land markets they want to see better more competitive ways of financing infrastructure for development they want to lose they want to free up the incredibly restrictive land use rules and zoning practices that are responsible for driving up the cost of housing in the cost of land for the life of me I can’t really understand why Nick Smith and Bill English don’t support these policies they would if implemented they would make a massive difference to solving the housing crisis that’s given our biggest city what the Economist magazine calls the most expensive housing in the world so I call on members tonight to support and vote for both David Parker’s amendments on infrastructure financing and a national requiring the minister to publish a national policy statement on urban growth because they would fix the problem that it’s at the core of our failing urban growth our ability to manage urban growth and out spectacularly in our country’s biggest city but not only do they would do it in a way that’s much more effective than the kind of tinkering that we see in Clause clauses 11 and 12 of part 1 of this film the Productivity Commission I think and I want to say that in spite of having described them as right wing supply-side dinosaurs many years ago the Productivity Commission and the work the work that they have done in the last few years on urban growth and urban planning is changeful is hugely impressive they’ve assembled a reform agenda that will be incredibly useful for the next labour-led government this year I call Catherine Delahunty cura uh coach okay tornami

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *