All of which begs the question of why the minister needed to rant and rave in recent months about overriding the powers of local councils if they failed to do his bidding and open up land for housing redevelopment. As recently as early September, in introducing the third reading of the Housing Accords Bill, he was still at it, colourfully complaining, "we've got a constipated planning system bogging down new residential construction and this bill is a laxative to get new houses flowing".
Auckland, he said, "has got just 1300 sections available for housing - a third of what there was a decade ago - and we need 13,000 a year just to keep up with population growth".
"The Government's strong preference is to get this work done in partnership ... but this bill also provides for the Government to get on with the job if councils stand in the way of delivering an increased supply of affordable housing."
But, as he admitted, at that stage he'd already signed up to a housing accord with Auckland along the very lines outlined in the bill.
In other words, all the abuse and threats at local councils - in particular Auckland Council - was strictly gratuitous.
After the act was passed on September 10, Dr Smith said it was now back in Auckland's hands. "It's up to Auckland where it wants to grow. What this accord does is support them to get some momentum around building the least contentious 39,000 of the 400,000 homes identified in the draft Unitary Plan that Auckland needs to keep up with population growth over the next 30 years."
"The accord will remain in place for three years and is an interim measure until Auckland's Unitary Plan becomes fully operative."
What he didn't mention is the big stick still buried in the legislation, which Auckland Council tried and failed to have removed. The accord remains in place for three years, unless "either party" gives six months' notice it's pulling out. In other words, if Auckland doesn't keep him happy, central Government can still pounce.
Not that, at this stage of the political cycle, either party would be wanting to attract the negative publicity of such a move. But this bully-clause remains in the legislation, another reminder to local politicians of what the central parliamentarians really think of them.
If Mr Brown is re-elected - which seems inevitable - it will be interesting to see whether he can honour his pledge to "ensure that a percentage of housing developed under the accord will be required to be affordable and specifically targeted at first-time home buyers and those who do not have the means to purchase a home at market rates".
This goes further than the accord, which rather vaguely requires developers only "to give consideration to the provisions of affordable housing and/or first home buyer purchase". It will be interesting to see if the developers go running to Mr Smith to complain.
Mr Brown also highlights that Auckland's first-time buyers, "tend to be borrowers with low deposits" [and] "are not the causing of housing unaffordability".
He refers to the Reserve Bank's new policy requiring most home loan borrowers to have a 20 per cent deposit - up from 10 per cent. This draws attention to the big flaw in Dr Smith's housing policy, that is that opening all the land in fringe Auckland up to housing is of no use to those at the bottom of the market, if they can't conjure up a large lump sum deposit.
