Goff Phil: Social Housing Reform (Flexible Purchasing and Remedial Matters) Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeGoff Phil: Social Housing Reform (Flexible Purchasing and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 21 May 2015. Volume:705;Page:3627. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill): Perhaps I should not be naive after the length of time I have had in this House but I really hoped on behalf of my constituents and the people in my city that we would have seen a Budget that confronted some of the pressing social problems that we are dealing with at the moment. I really hoped that today under urgency we would be working across the House together on legislation that would make a difference. Well that was naive was it not? It was naive because what we have seen in this debate and from this Minister in his contribution today is nothing more than double-speak and spin. Talk about more flexible and innovative social housing—how does this bill create that Minister? This is not about more innovative approaches. This is code for privatisation and opting out of the social responsibility that any Government has to make sure that people have stable decent homes where they can raise their kids in security and in warm and healthy housing.Eighty years ago this year men and women sat in this House and debated legislation that did just that. We set up State housing because that was the guarantee that the lowest-income people in the country the most vulnerable people in the country could still aspire to provide their kids with a decent home and a decent start in life. The Prime Minister should know that. That is how he got his start. I am proud that it was a Labour Government that gave his family help when they needed it.But what have we got now? We have a Government that is ideologically driven which now just wants to privatise State housing and opt out. I talked about double-speak and Orwellian language. Take this statement that the Minister put out in relation to this legislation: this package was about supporting moves to housing independence. Independence is a wonderful thing is it not? What was she really saying? She was talking about 3000 eviction notices that will be given this year to those people who might have just got their chin above the rising level of the cost of living in housing and now they are out on the street and they are trying to find alternatives for their family.Talking about as the Minister did more flexible and innovative social housing is simply to disguise a Government that has given up that is opting out of its social responsibility and that now wants to give these houses not to an organisation like the Salvation Army as it had promised before but to property investors and developers that do not have the well-being of the poor the vulnerable and the low-income people of this country at heart.I want to ask the Minister this question: what is there in this legislation that requires urgency today? What is it? What aspect requires us to rush through this Committee today without the scrutiny of a select committee the provisions in this bill? I have read it backwards and forwards Minister and there is nothing there that requires urgency. Do you know why we are doing this under urgency? It is because this Government does not want to subject its superficial legislation to the scrutiny of the public through a select committee. That is why we have got it here today.What evaluation has been done? The Government is about to pass over the fundamental responsibility of providing social housing from an organisation that has had decades of experience and the flexibility of providing housing where and when it is needed. It is going to pass it over to the private sector. So I asked the Minister for Social Housing the Hon Paula Bennett this question under an Official Information Act request: what analysis has been done of the benefits or disadvantages of social housing being provided by NGOs—because I thought it was NGOs not the private sector when I wrote the request—rather than through Housing New Zealand? Listen to this reply: “Your request for analysis on the benefits or disadvantages of social housing being provided by NGOs rather than through Housing New Zealand is refused under section 18(e) of the Official Information Act as this information does not exist.” Do you know what this answer says? It says that we have got a bill before the Committee that will privatise State housing and no analysis has been done by the Government of the implications and the consequences of what it is rushing through this Committee without the benefit of scrutiny by a select committee.If you have any doubts about that just have a look at the departmental statement that accompanies this legislation because it confirms that there is no evaluation and that not even Treasury has commented on this proposal. This proposal is not a serious governmental proposal; it is an ideological proposal by a Government that pretends it is at the centre and throws a few coins to the poor when it suits it politically to do so but at the same time it is undermining the ability of our community and our Government to provide people with a fundamental housing need.I want to know from the Minister what this will do to increase the supply of social housing. When I looked at the figures Minister I saw that this Government has not increased Housing New Zealand homes; it has cut them by 1600—1600 homes—in the last 3 years. It slashed it. Now it wants to give away another couple of thousand houses to the private sector without knowing what is going to happen.And what is happening to our people on the ground who could be helped by this legislation? Our people on the ground are paying rents that have risen by $1300 on average in the last year—$25 a week. It is an interesting figure that $25 a week is it not? If you are a beneficiary it is gone already. It is gone on rent increases. But actually it is not $25 a week. Read the fine print—if you are in a State house a quarter of that goes anyway. So $6.25 goes on increased rent for your State house. It is not $25 a week for them; it is about $18 or $19. If you are in the private sector your accommodation supplement is cut. So it is a case of giving on the one hand and taking on the other.But going back to this legislation nothing in this bill helps those people whose rents are going up at six times the rate of overall inflation each year. There is a crisis of affordability for people to be able to get into homes and this bill does nothing at all about that. Actually think about the people at the bottom of the heap. Who are they competing with now? They are competing with 40 percent of the population who today have no chance of homeownership. Do you know what has happened to house prices in Auckland? They have gone up by 15 percent $100000 in the last year alone—$100000. What pressure does that put on rent? What pressure does that put on ordinary hard-working New Zealanders who actually want to buy their own home but cannot and are now forced into the rental market and can out-compete the people at the bottom who previously at least could have looked to Housing New Zealand to provide them with housing security?There is a crisis in housing affordability in this country. Once upon a time we could guarantee that an activist State would do something about that. Is this bill going to increase social housing by one house? The answer is no. The answer is no; it is likely to further reduce it. The Government is opting out of its responsibility at the very time it should be stepping up to its responsibility. If we want kids to get a good education if we want healthy kids that starts in the home and it starts with having a secure stable home and a warm and healthy home. Traditionally a Government would say that Housing New Zealand had that responsibility. Housing New Zealand through one piece of legislation after the other has had its role and its responsibility cut back. With this bill it is not even going to be able to provide housing advice. Why would it waste it’s time for a Government that has never listened to the advice? I know the Housing New Zealand people who provide the homes. I know the people in Work and Income who now allocate them. If the Minister went out from his ivory tower and listened to those people he would understand that there is a crisis and he would equally understand that there is nothing in this legislation that will go one iota towards resolving that crisis.This Budget was a failure and this bill is a failure in terms of actually making a difference for a better New Zealand.