The focus groups have spoken.
National has performed a complete reversal on the bipartisan changes to the Resource Management Act amendments designed to improve housing supply and introduced only 18 months ago.
I have never seen such a comprehensive backtrack on a policy that a major party originally milked for all that it was worth.
I mean this is significant. Eighteen months ago National was in there boots and all. In fact the bill can be traced to a letter that Judith Collins wrote to the Government proposing the changes, an offer that the Government then accepted.
But after Christopher Luxon became leader he started the walkback. As I said in December 2021:
He is busily walking back the party’s proposal to allow further housing intensification in a joint approach with the Government. The leafy suburbs of Remuera have spoken.
It was not hard to spot. The owner of eight separate pieces of real estate thought that the market was doing fine, and what was needed was a market that delivered price increases.
His comments from the time were:
Luxon said National will listen to feedback from local government and experts on what changes could be made.
“We will digest that feedback. We want to make some amendments to the Bill and we’ll be talking with the Government about that, because I think if they can come on board with those amendments, great, but if not we’ll revisit it.”
His comments were weird. They were made on December 1, but the bill had its third reading two weeks later.
According to Nicola Willis who championed the legislation National did consider the feedback and changes were made to the bill. She said this at the second reading:
We had hundreds of submissions from experts, from local authorities, from residents’ associations—from people impacted by this bill. We gave those submissions detailed consideration. The select committee considering this bill has meet for more than 56 hours, and we have done so because we want this legislation to work as well as possible. I want to thank the submitters, whose observations and whose expertise will make sure that this bill can be much more enduring into the future. Their thoughts and their concerns have been addressed in a number of amendments which are in the Supplementary Order Paper that the Minister has discussed.
She thought the select committee process was an “exemplar of how Parliament can work together to make legislation better”. She thought that New Zealand “can do density well and we should do density well”.
Her concluding words were these:
This is a bill which will make a difference, not just next year or the year after; this is a bill that will allow for more responsive housing supply in New Zealand for generations to come. It is appropriate that the select committee have studied the details carefully and have made a number of very thoughtful amendments. National is proud to support this bill.
Scott Simpson said the bill was “effectively, National Party policy and it’s the sort of thing that we have campaigned on now for several elections”.
Of opponents to the bill he said this:
Giving property owners the right to build is a fundamental National Party principle, because we on this side of the House believe in private property rights, and it’s been fascinating to see some parties that we thought believed in private property rights actually dancing on the head of a pin and trying to find every possible reason not to support this legislation.
Gerry Brownlee lambasted Act for opposing the bill:
I never thought I’d come to the House and hear the ACT Party passionately pleading for more rules to be inflicted on people in New Zealand. I’ve normally got quite a bit of time for Mr Court. I think he’s a very intelligent man who makes great contributions. But, man, oh man, where did that speech come from? Here we have a bill that is going to allow a whole lot more flexibility for people who want to use some of their surplus land or use a section that might be cleared for that purpose to create more houses for New Zealanders who desperately need them.
At the third reading Scott Simpson said:
This is National Party policy that we campaigned on, and I’m surprised that that has come as a surprise to some people who have been commentating and passing criticism about this legislation.
There are many other examples but I am sure that you get the drift of what is happening.
But then the complete reversal occurred.
Their new policy would allow major Councils to opt of the Act out but only if they allow current development of all of their future zoned growth areas immediately is a recipe for urban sprawl, and huge infrastructure bills that councils simply cannot afford even though National has promised some funding.
And the funding will come from, you will not believe it, cancelling funding for projects helping poor people, such as the Affordable Housing Fund, Kiwibuild, the Housing Acceleration Fund and most concerningly Kaiangaroa’s Land Acquisition fund.
Take that poor people. National clearly prefers to make it easier for speculators than ordinary people when it comes to the housing market.
It appears to be policy on the hoof by Luxon with Bishop and Willis having to grin and bear it.
So the walk back is weird. As said by Simpson this was core National Party policy, private land rights and all that stuff. To be so enthusiastic about the bill but to then drop it like a hot potato when your leader is asked a question at a meeting is really strange.
It highlights that National is prepared to sacrifice anything if it thinks there will be a political advantage in doing so. And how National’s supposed principles are always subservient to its perceptions of political advantage.
Powered by WPtouch Mobile Suite for WordPress