Brian Rudman: State housing experts embarrass Key

What hope of getting good law when state institutions such as Housing New Zealand feel the need to rush off and apologise to the minister after a top planner has the temerity to stand up before a parliamentary select committee and tell the truth.

A spokesman then tried to pass the incident off as a "naive mistake" by Auckland staff unfamiliar with Government process. Yet the so-called naive Auckland staff member was none other than Christine Chong, principal planner for Housing New Zealand Corporation and the Crown entity's top gun when it comes to making submissions before all sorts of hearings and commissions.

The other "naive" person was Nathan Baker, senior planner, Tonkin and Taylor, an independent consultant who has been used by Housing NZ in other big hearings.

Their crime was to tell an inconvenient truth. One that highlighted - and bravely criticised - Prime Minister John Key's nimby attitude to state housing in his electorate of Helensville.

Over the past few days, our political masters have been flocking to Anzac parades up and down the country to hail the heroes who fought to protect such democratic freedoms as being able to speak the truth. Such rhetoric seems rather hypocritical when the Crown's own experts are banned from doing just this at the very heart of our democracy. Especially when the ban occurs in the very process of crafting new laws.

The two experts were speaking to the select committee considering the rapidly drawn up bill "simplifying and streamlining" the Resource Management Act. One proposed change is to "streamline" consent processes "for projects of national significance". The Government and its big business allies want to be able to fast track major infrastructure projects such as new highways and dams.

Housing NZ's submission says excuse me, we consider "affordable and social housing initiatives are nationally significant" as well and should be added to the fast-track list.

It says Housing NZ projects "enable people and communities to provide for their social, economic and cultural well-being and for their health and safety, without significant adverse environmental effects being generated".

"The national importance of HNZC projects does not only relate to major projects such as Hobsonville, but also includes smaller and often multiple projects spread throughout communities."

So far so good, but then the submission turned embarrassing - for the Government at least. "The opposition to these projects comes from adjoining neighbours - a situation commonly referred to as nimby (not-in-my-backyard) opposition. This local opposition can significantly hinder community housing projects, adding significant delays, time and cost to HNZC undertaking its role as New Zealand's lead provider of social and affordable housing and community support facilities."

It calls for the "social infrastructure needs of HNZC" to be given the same recognition under the RMA as "the operational infrastructure needs of a nationwide network utility operator".

It's little wonder that linking Hobsonville and nimbyism caused a few shudders in the Wellington bureaucracy. One of Mr Key's long-standing promises to his constituents was that, once in office, he would kill the proposed 500 state rental houses proposed for Housing NZ's major new town development at the old Hobsonville airbase site. It would be "economic vandalism", he said, to inflict the sort of state housing he grew up in on his nimby supporters.

The 3000-home "sustainable mixed community" at Hobsonville was to be Housing NZ's showpiece development, a new town with a mixture of rental and privately owned homes ranging across various price brackets. It has now been stopped dead, like so many other social housing projects, by nimbyism. The planners were just telling the truth and suggesting a partial solution. Given the background, I don't call their action naive. Rather, it was brave and honest.

That there's now talk of disciplinary action seems outrageous. If you can't get honest testimony at select committee hearings, what chance will there be of achieving the best legislation possible.

Housing NZ has two key objectives: "To deliver housing assistance to those greatest in need; and to be the principal adviser to the Government on housing and housing policy."

It seems depressingly Kafkaesque that the principal planner, in carrying out both of these key objectives simultaneously, by advising that local opposition to social housing projects is one of the major obstacles to housing those in greatest need, is now in trouble.