On The Nation: Housing Debate
On The Nation: Housing
Debate A Salvation Army
report says 2,000-2,500 new social houses are needed every
year just to keep pace with demand. Neither National nor
Labour will commit to that figure - Phil Twyford says Labour
will build enough social houses to have a net increase of at
least 1000 a year. Amy Adams says National plan to build
6,400 over three years. Adams says demand has peaked for
emergency stays in motels, despite the latest publicly
released figures showing an increase. Twyford says Labour
can end homelessness - housing about 41,000 people - over
two terms in Government. Adams refuses to admit there’s
a housing crisis, instead saying “There is absolutely
housing pressure, but the numbers are heading in the right
direction.”
Headlines:
Lisa Owen: Well, housing is one of the
hottest election topics this year as house prices continue
to rise, immigration increases demand and social housing
supply struggles to keep up. This week the Salvation Army
put out a report saying we need thousands more social houses
every year. So who is listening to that advice? I'm joined
now by National's Amy Adams and Labour's Phil Twyford. Good
morning to you both.
Amy
Adams: Morning.
We can start off by just
getting a benchline here. Do you believe a safe, dry house
is a human right, Mr
Twyford?
Phil Twyford:
Yes.
Categorically?
Twyford:
Yes.
Ms
Adams?
Adams: Everybody
needs to have a safe, dry, warm place to live. That's the
basis for all of the other things we want them to have in
life.
Okay. So in terms of social housing, how
much social housing does the government need over the next
10 years to make sure that people have access to that
right?
Adams: Well,
interestingly enough, the number that the Salvation Army
ended up with in their report of needing to build around
2000 more a year, we agree with. That's the plan we've
committed to. We have committed to building 6500 out to
2020. We do our projections over a three- to four-year
window. There's a new one coming out at the end of this year
for the next period. So we are committed to and are building
that figure of 2000 a year that they've indicated as what's
needed.
Well, the thing with that figure, that
was the absolute bare minimum they said — 2000 to 2500 —
and I think by your calculation, you're building 1889 a
year.
Adams: Well, we're
going to be building 6400 over the period out to
2020.
But you're still be short. That's the
point. According to their calculations, you're still
short.
Adams: No. Well, I
disagree with that. I think, actually, that our figures—
We've done our own modelling. They're very robust. We've
gone through all of the projections. Some of the assumptions
underlying the Salvation Army numbers, we wouldn't
necessarily agree with. But, look, broadly they've said,
'You need around 2000 extra a year.' We're going to be
building 2000 extra a year over the next three years. And as
I said, our projections for the
year—
They're talking about 10
years.
Adams: That's right.
We don't do projections over 10 years. We review them every
year over a four-year window. The next lot will be coming
out very soon.
Let's find out what Mr Twyford
is offering in terms of social housing. Per year, how many
will Labour build?
Twyford:
So we've said we'll stop National's state house sell-off and
we will build enough to deliver a net increase of at least
1000 a year every year until demand is met, and we expect to
be much more ambitious than that. But, Lisa, let's talk
about what's happened over the last nine years cos under
Amy's government, there has been a net reduction in the
number of state houses of 5000. When you factor in
community-provided houses, that reduction is 3000. That's
why Amy's spending $140,000 a day putting people up in
motels right now.
Adams: Those numbers are just not true,
Phil.
Twyford: They are. They're your numbers, Amy. They
come from your office.
Adams: There were 67,500 houses.
There's now 66,300. So, yep, there's 1200 less and we can
talk about why that is. But interestingly enough, Phil, over
the same period we're providing right now 2000 more places
than when we took over from your government—
Twyford:
Yeah, but you budgeted extra subsidies, Amy, but you don't
have enough houses to put people in. There are only 63,000
people living in subsidised houses. Because you've sold off
so many houses, you can't even use the 67,000 subsidies that
you have budgeted. That's why the Salvation Army says we've
got the worst homelessness in living memory. That's why Yale
University says we have the worst rate of homelessness in
the Western world.
Adams: Those numbers are quite wrong
yet you quote them shamelessly. It's incredible. The Yale
report said quite clearly you can't compare country to
country because the way New Zealand measures its homeless
numbers is quite different to anywhere else in the
world.
Twyford: They ranked us number one for
homelessness, Amy.
Adams: They said themselves if New
Zealand measured its homelessness the same way Japan did,
then we'd be one of the best in the
world.
Okay. There's a couple of things I want
to raise here. You are saying that National's cut state
houses. They're not doing enough. You're saying 1000 houses
net increase but you're not promising enough either because
the Salvation Army has clearly stated 2500 houses will only
keep us at the same level of homelessness we have. So you're
not doing enough either. You're not promising
enough.
Twyford: We've said
as a bare minimum and we expect to do more. But bear in
mind, we are also going to build 100,000 affordable
homes.
No, no. We'll talk about affordable
homes soon. We're talking about social housing now. So how
many more can you commit
to?
Twyford: Well, I'm not
going to make up numbers on the show this morning, Lisa, but
we've said a minimum of 1000. We've said we'll be more
ambitious than that. We are committed to increasing the
stock of state and community housing.
But you
do have to have a policy on it and that involves
projections. So what are you basing your 1000 houses on?
What projections are you using to tell you that that's
enough?
Twyford: So we've
looked at very similar projections to the Salvation Army's.
In fact, we've spoken extensively with the Salvation Army
about this. And we've said that we're going to commit to
increasing the stock by a minimum of 1000 a year, and we
expect to do a lot more than that. Amy's overseen a massive
reduction in the number of state houses.
Adams: But,
Phil, the fact remains we've committed to double that, so
we're committed to and are in the process of building a net
increase in the number of social houses over the next three
years of 2000 a year, every year. That's what the minimum
the Salvation Army—
Twyford: Amy, you've had nine
years, and now to put out a press release before the
election saying you're promising to build all these houses
after you've spent the last nine years selling state houses
off, the country deserves better than that.
Adams: That
commitment was made in December last year. We put it out
December every year. We'll put out another one December of
this year. And as I've said, what you've seen under us is
better quality stock, better configured, newer, more money
on maintenance, more money on upgrades. When we took over
from the Labour government, we had run-down stock, we had
stock that hadn’t had any money spent on it, that wasn’t
warm, that wasn’t dry.
Twyford: Rubbish.
Adams: And
we’ve spent $500 million a year upgrading the quality of
that stock and making sure we have the right houses in the
right place with far better tenant services than we ever had
under Labour.
Twyford: You’ve been selling them off,
and you’ve run down Housing New Zealand. It’s a
glorified property management agency. You’ve stripped all
the functions out of it.
Adams: Phil’s made that
comment several times, so let’s talk about
it.
So, he said you’re 500,000 houses short.
Salvation Army says that you’ve
dropped–
Adams: He’s
absolutely wrong.
Twyford: No, they’re her
numbers.
Just a minute, Mr Twyford. The
Salvation Army says that you’ve dropped in stock by around
2000 houses since lowest levels – since 2005, they’re
saying.
Adams: No. Our
numbers are that we were about 1200 below when we took over
government.
Twyford: In the middle of a housing
crisis.
Adams: But what I will say to you is that when
we’ve removed houses, it’s been for a number of reasons.
We’ve taken houses down because there’s been earthquake
damage. We take them down because they’re significantly
meth contaminated.
But it’s not getting
better, though, is it? Net growth is not getting
better.
Adams: Well, it
is.
And you’re putting people up in motels.
You’re putting people up in
motels.
Adams: Let’s talk
about that. So, first of all, we have to look at the number
of people who are on the social housing register.
Interestingly enough, if you look at the number of
individuals on the social housing register, it is the same
level now almost to the single individual as it was in 2006.
There were 15,900 individuals on the social housing register
then.
Twyford: That’s not an accurate measure of
need.
Adams: And there are 15,900 now.
Twyford: It’s
almost impossible to get on the waiting list.
Adams: What
we’ve seen now is very similar levels of need. We are
increasing the stock 2000 net every year – double what
Labour is promising. But at the same time, we’re also
increasing the quality of the stock, we’re improving the
tenancy services surrounding it and we’re making sure
there’s a much more diverse range of
providers.
Twyford: It’s got worse.
Adams: One thing
the Salvation Army did say is that, actually, government
doesn’t have to be the owner of all these houses. It works
well if you have a range of providers, and that’s what the
National government’s provided.
But the
numbers still have to increase in
net.
Adams: We’re
promising double what Labour’s
promising.
But by Salvation Army’s estimates
and by our best guess, there’s around 40,000 people who
are homeless in New Zealand. And the Salvation Army has said
categorically, if you only build 2000 – 2500 houses, you
are committing us to the same level of homelessness. Are you
happy with that? Can you tolerate that level of
homelessness?
Adams: Well,
first of all, we don’t accept the 40,000 figure. The
number that came out of the deprivation
study–
But you don’t have a number,
though.
Adams: Yes, we do.
We have a number that came out.
Twyford: It’s the
official government definition of homelessness. There are
41,000 people.
Adams: If I could finish my answer. The
number that came out of the deprivation study showed that
there are around 4200 who are classed as rough sleepers or
homeless. And, as I say, that number we’re absolutely
working on. What we have is, for the first time ever, a
dedicated programme dealing with long-term
homelessness.
I want to establish what level
of homelessness you are happy to tolerate, because 2500
houses will just keep us where we
are.
Adams: We don’t
agree that it will just keep us where we are. Let me say
this – I don’t accept any level of homelessness. We want
to see every New Zealander in safe, secure housing. That’s
why our programme isn’t just about building real estate;
it’s about working with tenants on the underlying issues
to make sure that they move out of that
pattern.
Okay. Mr Twyford, those homeless
numbers – how many are Labour prepared to
tolerate?
Twyford: We’re
committed to a New Zealand strategy to end homelessness.
That will be the goal of our government.
Over
what period of time are you going to do
that?
Twyford: I would
expect over two terms we could end homelessness in New
Zealand. It’s not just about building emergency housing.
You know, Amy promised–
Hang on just a
minute. You accept there’s 40,000, don’t
you?
Twyford: 41,000,
actually, according to the government’s own official
definition of homelessness.
And you would
house all of them over two terms – six years. Is that the
commitment you’re
making?
Twyford: It’s not
just about building emergency housing, Lisa. It’s about
the higher housing spectrum.
I understand
that.
Twyford: We need to
build more state houses. We need the emergency
housing.
This is really important, Mr
Twyford.
Twyford: It’s
very important.
You’ve just said 41,000, you
accept, are homeless. You will tolerate zero homelessness.
And two terms, you reckon, is the period of time it will
take you to get rid of
it.
Twyford: I think
that’s a reasonable period of time to do it. But it’s
about building more state houses, not selling them off.
It’s about delivering the emergency housing. Amy promised
1400 extra emergency housing beds nine months ago. She’s
delivered only about 300 of those extra beds. That’s why
Te Puea Marae in South Auckland have opened their doors to
the homeless for the second winter in a row.
Adams: With
housing that we’ve provided, Mr Twyford, Te Puea Marae are
part of our programme. We have provided them with units on
the site, and we’ve provided them with funding to fund
those services.
Twyford: Amy, it’s not something to be
proud of that people are living in cars and garages and the
marae are having to house the homeless. That’s not an
achievement, Amy.
Adams: If you’re going to talk to me
over the whole debate, it’s not going be very
constructive. This is something that was a problem right
through Labour’s term. I can point to any number of media
reports through 2004 and 2005 where they were being turned
away by the Salvation Army, by Monte Cecilia. These problems
are not new.
But you’re in government now,
so we want to talk about what you’re
doing.
Adams: That’s
right, and that’s why our plan is credible. Labour had
three terms previously and did nothing about chronic
homelessness and short-term housing.
Why do
you think–?
Adams: We
have created the first ever fully funded programme for
short-term housing, transitional housing and dedicated
funding for Housing First to deal with long-term chronic
homelessness.
Twyford: But you haven’t built the
houses.
We’re coming up to a break, and I
just want to get this clear. Why are we buying more motels?
You’ve said recently that you believe emergency stays in
motels have peaked. But the first two quarters of this year,
the budget was 20 million bucks spent on putting people into
motels. What makes you say that this has peaked? Published
numbers don’t support
that.
Adams No, that’s
right. But I see the numbers week by week, and I can tell
you that from the peak in late June, they’ve come down by
25%, which is exactly what we expect will
happen.
Over how many
weeks?
Adams: Well, from
the end of June till now. So they’ve come down from a peak
of around 895 grants per week to around 650 grants. And that
is because those transitional places that we were talking
about – we now have 1600 of those available. And that is
exactly what we’ve set out to do. We said the short-term
motel stays were a short-term gap filler while these places
came to market.
So, Mr Twyford, Ms Adams says
the peak is over. Do you believe
her?
Twyford: Let’s see
the numbers. I’ll believe it when I see it. The Salvation
Army say homelessness is worse than ever. There are families
living in vans and garages and campgrounds. This is the
legacy of nine years of Amy’s
government.
When are we going to see those
numbers? When will you make them available to
us?
Adams: Well, the
numbers come out every quarter. We’re obviously happy to
release them.
Yeah, but you’re seeing them
in advance.
Adams: Yeah,
well, I see them week by week. I’m the minister; of course
I keep close tabs on it.
So we’re not going
to see them before the next election? Because the next
report is not for release
until–
Adams: Well, I’m
very happy to make them available. But I can tell you right
now that the last lot of numbers I saw had taken that peak
down from about 895 per week to about 650, so they are
petering off as we bring on more of those transitional
places. A point I would make, Lisa, though, is that the only
reason we have this is because we have
funded–
No, just one thing. To be clear, you
are prepared to release
those–
Adams:
Absolutely.
Sorry. You’re prepared to
release those to us after the
show.
Adams: Absolutely.
Very happy to. So, what we’re providing, though, is
something that has never been provided. It’s crocodile
tears from Labour, who sat there in government for nine
years, did nothing for chronic homeless, did nothing for
emergency estates.
Okay, just before we go to
the break–
Twyford:
Rubbish. Amy, you’ve been in government for nine years.
You’re blaming a government that was elected 18 years ago.
You’re the minister.
Adams: And, Phil, we have been
working on this for nine years. Now we’re making a
difference.
Time out, people. Before we go to
the break, I just want to ascertain – are we in a housing
crisis yet?
Adams: Oh,
there is absolutely housing pressure. I would
say–
No, no, I’m asking if we’re in a
crisis.
Twyford: ‘Is
there a crisis?’
Adams: And I’m answering the
question. There is absolutely evidence that all of the
indicators are now tracking the right direction. We have the
biggest building boom ever underway. We have 100,000 new
houses and apartments.
Twyford:
Nonsense.
So that’s a no from you? We’re
not in a housing
crisis.
Adams: There is
absolutely housing pressure, but the numbers are heading in
the right direction.
So we’re not in a
housing crisis, according to
you.
Adams: Well, look,
‘crisis’ can mean different things to different people.
There are pressures we need to deal with, but the numbers
are heading in the right direction.
Okay. Mr
Twyford, just before we go to the break, are we in a housing
crisis?
Twyford: The
National Party cabinet are the only people in New Zealand
who believe that there is not a housing
crisis.
Okay. We’ll leave it
there.
You’re back with The Nation in our housing
debate. Let’s move on to the topic of affordable housing.
Mr Twyford, Auckland houses cost about 10 times income. What
should they be?
Twyford:
Ideally, they should be three times. If we had a housing
market that was working properly, your housing would be—
the median price would be about three to four times the
median household income. But it’s totally out of whack.
The Economist magazine recently said, on three out of five
indicators, New Zealand had the most expensive housing in
the world relative to income.
So is it
Labour’s goal to get it down to that – about four
times?
Twyford: We want to
stabilise the housing market and stop these ridiculous, year
on year, capital gains that have made housing unaffordable
for a whole generation of young Kiwis.
But in
essence, you’re going to drop the value of houses, if you
want them to be four times the price of the average
income.
Twyford: Well,
we’re going to build through KiwiBuild. We’re going to
100,000 affordable homes.
I want to come to
KiwiBuild in a moment. I just want to talk to you about the
price.
Twyford: That will
make housing affordable for young Kiwi families. That’s
our policy.
Well, do you need a capital gains
tax to get that threshold down to where you would want it to
be?
Twyford: Well, we are
going to shift the goalposts by taxing speculators. So under
our plan, if a speculator sells within five
years—
Yeah, that’s the bright-line. I am
asking you about capital gains – a bit of a sensitive
issue for Labour.
Twyford:
Not a sensitive issue at all.
So do you think
we need a capital
gains—?
Twyford: If a
speculator sells a rental property within five years, they
will pay income tax on the capital gain.
Yeah,
we know about the bright-line. What we don’t know about is
a capital gains tax. So do you think that you need a capital
gains tax to get house prices down to the ratios that you
think are right?
Twyford:
Well, we think comprehensive tax reform is overdue in this
country, not only to tilt the playing field away from real
estate speculation
Last chance – capital
gains tax?
Adams: Answer
the question, Phil.
Twyford: In the first three years,
we’re going to do a tax working group that will redesign
the entire tax system.
I know that. Do you
think we need it? All right, so he doesn’t want to answer
that one.
Adams: So it’s
another tax they won’t tell us about until after the
election. This is becoming a consistent theme from
Labour.
Okay. So, Ms Adams, Phil Twyford is
saying about four times the average income would be about
right for the ratios. Do you think it would be a good thing
for house prices to go
down?
Adams: Look, what we
want to do – and where I do agree with Mr Twyford – is
it is about getting the housing market working correctly.
And that’s why our approach to affordability has had three
prongs to it. First of all, when Government is involved in
building and developing market houses, we’ve committed to
at least 20% of those being affordable in terms of the
HomeStart KiwiSaver contributions. The second part of our
reforms, and the biggest part of it, is getting that market
working correctly by ensuring that there is adequate land
supply coming to market, by freeing up the development.
Because we’re seeing, Lisa, in Christchurch, that when you
do that, prices absolutely adjust, and in some cases, do
fall, but certainly level. And of course, we’re funding
the infrastructure, because you can’t build houses without
the infrastructure to support them. Now, we’ve committed
$1.6 billion to support that infrastructure. And the final
part around affordability is making sure that we have a
strong economy, because if Kiwis have jobs, if they have
good incomes, and if the economy is working well, then the
interest rates stay low.
So you’ve outlined
sort of market measures. But the thing is, between 2011 and
2016, the median house price in Auckland went up 70%,
according to Barfoot figures. Are you happy with that, or is
that a failure? Because it was on your watch that that
happened.
Adams: It’s no
doubt that there was a very overheated part of the Auckland
housing market. But what’s interesting is if you look at
the—
So that’s a fail, is
it?
Adams: What I’m
saying is that there was no doubt that they, in my view,
went up too fast, too quickly, and that they had to slow
down, and we’ve been working very hard. Now, the reason
they did that—
But your party was in charge
of market, kind of, conditions that you’re laying out –
you’ve just laid them out
before.
Adams: Let’s look
at that. So, actually, if you look at
the—
And it went up 70%. So is that a
fail?
Adams: Okay, so
let’s look at two things with that. First of all, the nine
years under the last Labour government, house
prices
I’m asking you about your tenure.
I’m interested in your tenure, because that’s what you
can control.
Adams: The
comparison, though, is 100% under the last Labour government
to around 57% under us. What I’m saying to you is that the
biggest indicator of what drives those prices up is land use
regulation. Now, when we have wanted—
Hang
on.
Adams: Well, he had a
lot longer to answer this question. When we’ve wanted to
reform the RMA to address land use regulation to bring on
legislation for areas like Pt England and Three Kings, every
time, Labour has opposed it. So they talk a good game about
working the housing market, and they oppose every single
reform that addresses it.
Mr Twyford, you’re
blocking reforms to make housing more
affordable,…
Twyford: How
are we blocking them, Lisa? How are we blocking
them?
…according to Ms
Adams.
Adams: You’ve
voted against every RMA reform. You’ve voted against Pt
England. You’ve voted against Three Kings. You’ve
opposed the Urban Development Strategy. You’ve done
nothing to address land supply rules.
Twyford: So,
Amy’s party has been blaming the RMA for the last 10 years
for expensive housing. They’ve done nothing effective in
nine years in government to reform the RMA. We’ve promised
to abolish the urban growth boundary and reform the planning
system so that our cities can grow. National has voted
against it twice in the Parliament. They talk a good game,
but actually they’ve done nothing to fix the planning
system.
Adams: Even your mate Phil Goff doesn’t believe
that will work, because, actually, if you don’t look at
the infrastructure that underpins houses, you’re pulling
numbers out of thin air, Phil.
Twyford: No. We’ve
promised to reform infrastructure financing, Lisa.
Adams:
You’re talking about houses you can’t build, you can’t
pay for, you have no land for and you have no infrastructure
for.
Twyford: We’ve promised to reform infrastructure
financing with infrastructure bonds. They’ve done nothing
about that in nine years.
Adams: That’s just more tax
for Council and more debt for Council.
Okay,
let’s move on to one of your core promises, one of your
flagship policies, KiwiBuild. So 100,000 houses over a
decade. Your finance guy has told us that he appreciates
that it’s going to cost more than you originally
costed.
Twyford: Because
land prices and house prices are going up so
fast.
$2 billion is what you put aside for it.
So how much more is it going to cost
you?
Twyford: We’ll work
that out in government. We’ll see what the PREFU
says.
Adams: Again, they have no idea. They have no idea.
No land, no idea, no plan.
But it’s
construction prices as well. It’s not just the land. 30%
to 40% increase in construction
prices.
Twyford: Yeah, it
is.
So is it not irresponsible that you
can’t give me a figure for how much more it’s going to
cost?
Twyford: We’ve said
we’ll put $2 billion up. $2 billion will be
borrowed…
Yes, and Grant Robertson has
acknowledged that that’s probably not going to be
enough.
Twyford: …to
kickstart a process of building 100,000 homes over 10
years.
So you don’t know how much more
you’re going to
need?
Twyford: Grant has
said if we need to put more in, we will. But, look, under
Amy’s government, house prices have doubled since she’s
been in office. Doubled.
But you’re all
about responsible budgeting, Labour has said. So I’m
asking you why this figure isn’t in your budget and how
much it is.
Twyford:
We’ve said we’ll put $2 billion in. If we need more,
Grant said he’ll find it.
Okay. All
right.
Adams: So in other
words, they have no idea. They don’t know where the land
is, they don’t know what the cost is, they don’t know
how they’re going to do it, and they’re not funding the
infrastructure.
Twyford: At least, Amy, we’re building
affordable houses.
Adams: Phil, you’re building
nothing. You’re building nothing. You’re pulling numbers
out of the air.
Twyford: You promised 4000 affordable
houses in 10 years. We’re going to build 100,000
affordable houses. That’s the difference between our two
parties.
Adams: Phil, the difference is ours is costed,
we know the sites, we’ve funded the infrastructure, we
have a plan. You’re making numbers up that you can’t
substantiate.
Twyford: Yeah, but you’re not building
any affordable houses.
Adams: We are building affordable
houses.
Twyford: People need houses they can afford to
live in.
Adams: And that’s why we’re fixing the
market, we’re fixing land,…
Twyford: You’re fixing
the market, are you?
Adams: …we’re funding the
infrastructure, and we’re making sure people have good
jobs and higher incomes and low interest rates.
Twyford:
Look at the Special Housing Areas. How many affordable
houses were built in Special Housing Areas? How
many?
Adams: We have 150 Special Housing Areas, and they
are building 59,000 houses.
Twyford: How many affordable
houses, Amy?
Adams: Well, Phil, the point of that was to
bring more land to market.
Twyford: I’ll tell you, Amy,
because you don’t seem to know – there were no
affordable houses built. You’re too embarrassed to count
them and tell people.
Adams: Well, at the moment, Phil,
I’m not able to get a word in edgewise, because you’re
talking over the top of me. What I’m saying to you is that
Special Housing Areas were part of our plan – again, that
you opposed – to bring more land to market for
development, because the fastest way—
Twyford: They
didn’t result in any affordable houses.
Give
her a right of
reply.
Adams: …the
fastest way to address affordability is to increase the
amount of land coming to market. You only have to look at
Christchurch. I know Phil doesn’t get out of Auckland
often.
Twyford: And how’s that working, Amy?
Adams:
In Christchurch, when we freed up land supply
post-earthquake, and we legislated to make large areas of
land available for land development, we saw house prices
come back sharply. In fact, there’s a glut
now.
All right, we’re running out of time. I
want to clarify two things. You know that there’s a
shortfall of about 40,000 houses in Auckland
alone.
Twyford: On
National’s watch.
We’ve got to build about
17,000 a year now with population growth. So in the past
nine years, under the National Government, ballpark, how
many houses have you built in
Auckland?
Adams: Well, the
government is not building it. The government is fixing the
market. What we know, Lisa—
Well, how many
have been built? Because you’re fixing the
market.
Adams: What we
know, Lisa, is there has been 20%, year on year, growth in
the construction sector across New Zealand, and I would
argue the construction sector can’t grow much
more.
Well, last year only 7000 were built in
Auckland.
Adams: And,
actually, if you look at the pipeline that’s coming up,
30,000-plus a year over the next three years,…
Twyford:
People can’t live in a pipeline, Amy.
Just
before we go—
Adams:
…because we now have reformed the planning process, we
have changed the planning.
Twyford: You haven’t. You
haven’t.
Adams: Phil, I passed the legislation for the
Auckland Plan Process. You opposed it.
Twyford: It
hasn’t made a blind bit of difference.
Adams: That has
delivered the intensification potential in Auckland that
we’re now seeing come to realisation.
Twyford: Where
are the affordable houses?
All right, we are
going to have to leave it there with that question
unanswered. Thank you both for joining us this
morning.
Transcript provided by Able. www.able.co.nz