Volume 695 Week 60 - Tuesday 19 November 2013Text is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVolume 695 Week 60 - Tuesday 19 November 2013[Sitting date: 19 November 2013. Volume:695;Page:14755. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Tuesday 19 November 2013Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.Questions to MinistersState-owned Assets Sales—Public Support and Future Plans1.Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) to theMinister of Finance: Why has he announced that the Government plans to end its asset sales programme given that he claims it has been a success?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): I merely pointed out that the Government’s only plan is the share offer programme set out in January 2011 on which we campaigned all of election year—and the Government actually won that election; not the Opposition as it alleged the other day. If there were any further share sales we would be transparent about it and campaign on it. The programme is a success because we have met the objectives we set 3 years ago in the sales that we have executed so far with another one to be completed today or tomorrow.Dr Russel Norman: Can he categorically rule out selling Kiwibank at any point in the future given that when he was asked in 2008 whether he wants to sell Kiwibank his answer was: “Eventually but not now.”?Hon BILL ENGLISH: That I understand was a tape-recording which by the admission of the person who recorded it was doctored. I can give the member that categorical assurance.Dr Russel Norman: Can he categorically rule out selling the $1.3 billion Landcorp at any point in the future given that it was National Party policy to sell Landcorp in the 2005 election campaign when the current Prime Minister was National’s finance spokesperson?Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Government is actually selling bits of Landcorp all the time. The member may not be aware of it but the point of Landcorp was to preserve lands and survey farms for the purposes of Treaty settlements. As Treaty settlements are executed the Government is involved in selling bunches of five six farms. I know that offends the Greens deeply because they think the Government should own all the farms and then shut them down but actually we want to get on with Treaty settlements. Landcorp is buying and leasing farms as well.Dr Russel Norman: Given that that was a no can he categorically rule out selling the remaining 51 percent—Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: Point of order Dr Gerry Brownlee—Gerry Brownlee.Grant Robertson: Dr Gerry Brownlee!Hon Member: That’s impossible.Mr SPEAKER: That is probably true. The Hon Gerry Brownlee.Hon Gerry Brownlee: I am not surprised that you would make that mistake Mr Speaker. Can I just ask you to consider whether it is appropriate for someone asking a question to start with the words: “Given that that was a no”? That is not acceptable and Mr Norman needs to be held to account.Mr SPEAKER: It is certainly not a useful way to start a question because in actual fact it was not factual given the answer the Minister gave. But in this case if the member could just ask a supplementary question he would assist the order of the House.Dr Russel Norman: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Can I take it from your intervention that you have interpreted the Minister’s answer as a yes?Mr SPEAKER: I certainly interpreted the answer as a satisfactory answer to the question that the member gave. If the member wants to continue asking supplementary questions on this question then we will do so but if not we will move to question No. 2.Dr Russel Norman: Can the Minister categorically rule out selling at any point in the future the remaining 51 percent of the electricity companies that remain in public ownership given that partial privatisation was a stepping stone to full privatisation for the Bank of New Zealand in the 1990s?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes I can give the member that assurance and I am pleased he has now realised that these companies are 51 percent owned by the Government. I hope he will inform all of those who want to vote in his referendum that that is the case because those who have listened to him so far think that these companies have been 100 percent sold when they have not.Dr Russel Norman: Can he categorically rule out privatising ACC at any point in the future given that it was a previous National Government that privatised ACC in the past?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes I can do that but I am very pleased with the performance of our ACC Ministers Nick Smith and Judith Collins who have overseen a remarkable turn-round in the performance of that organisation after it was left in a complete mess by the previous Government.Dr Russel Norman: In light of the Minister’s previous comments in support of Kiwibank in light of the fact that it has been National Party policy previously to sell Landcorp and in light of the fact that a previous National Government did privatise the ACC is it not true that the National Party wants to sell assets but that it is public pressure that prevents it from doing so?Hon BILL ENGLISH: No what is true is that when the National Party sets out to execute a policy that is challenging for the public we make it quite transparent what we are going to do if we are elected and we give the voters the chance to cast their votes knowing that those policies have been proposed. I would invite that member to set out just as transparently and in detail before the election the impact of his climate change policy on household costs so that voters have the chance to look at that.Dr Russel Norman: How can members of the public express their opposition to the Government’s asset sales programme?Hon BILL ENGLISH: They take the opportunity I am sure sometimes to address that directly to MPs. They had the opportunity in the 2011 election to weigh up the significance of that policy versus others and if they had followed the direction of the member they knew that the 2011 election was a referendum on asset sales. As I recall it under the rules of our democracy the National Party and its supporters won that election. In fact the Opposition did not win the election as that member claimed last week.Dr Russel Norman: Is public pressure the only thing that will stop National privatising more assets given its intent from the past; and given that public pressure can be expressed first by voting “No” to asset sales in the upcoming referendum is that a perfect way for the public to have their views expressed?Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member is now scraping around for a reason to try to make his referendum look relevant when of course it never was because the Government had a mandate and it got that mandate because it announced its policy 11 months ahead of an election campaigned on it in detail and debated it with the Opposition. One of the results of that was that the National Party received the highest-ever single party vote under MMP. So we proceeded with that plan it is almost finished and the member can do what he likes with his referendum.Question No. 2 to MinisterGRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I raise it under Speaker’s ruling 152/1. Question No. 2 was originally set down for the Prime Minister and it asked whether he stood by a particular statement that he had made. The Government has chosen to transfer that to the Attorney-General. Under Speaker’s ruling 152/1 and also Speakers’ ruling 151/5 which would allow you to potentially not allow the transfer of a question the practice of the Government when we ask questions about specific statements that have been made in this case by the Prime Minister—to transfer that to the Attorney-General I do believe breaches these Speakers’ rulings in this case. How Mr Finlayson would be able to read the mind of the Prime Minister in this case I do not know. I would ask under what circumstances you would be prepared to intervene in a situation such as this when a question is about whether a particular Minister in this case the Prime Minister stands by the statement and that is why we put the question down to the Prime Minister.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): Can I suggest that if the member had watched the news for perhaps just the first few minutes of the last number of days he would have realised that there was always going to be a question about who might be answering this particular question. It does raise the issue of if it was so specific to a Minister why in this circumstance it was asked of that Minister given the knowledge that the Opposition had about the ability of that Minister to answer today.GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): That is all very well and I did watch the news at least until the first ad break and I did notice that the Prime Minister was not here. That is of course irrelevant in this House because Mr English is the Acting Prime Minister and speaks for the Prime Minister. We wanted to know whether the Prime Minister stood by his statement.Mr SPEAKER: Can I address the last part of the first point of order the member raised: in what circumstances I would not consider accepting a transfer. That would be a circumstance where I saw it was an attempt by the Government to not give an answer to this House as required. In this particular case I am aware of a discussion that took place with the Office of the Clerk. The essence of the question is what is important and the essence of the question is: the Government believes there is no cause of action to further consider compensation.In that regard the Government speaks with one voice and on this occasion I think the Government has a perfect right in line with the Speaker’s ruling to which the member refers Speaker’s ruling 152/1 to make that transfer. So the question has been transferred and now the Hon David Cunliffe can indeed ask the question.Pike River Mine Disaster—CompensationHon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Leader of the Opposition): My question is to the Attorney-General: has he been advised whether the Prime Minister stands by his statement that “the Government believes”—[Interruption]—“there is no cause of action” to help contribute to the compensation for the Pike River families?Mr SPEAKER: Order! Can I just ask security—[Interruption] We will just wait for a minute while security deals with this.A disturbance took place in the gallery and members of the public were removed.Mr SPEAKER: Order! Can I just remind the media that there are some rules around the filming of that particular incident. I am happy to talk to the media after the event.2.Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Leader of the Opposition) to theAttorney-General: Has he been advised whether the Prime Minister stands by his statement that “the Government believes there is no cause of action” to help contribute to the compensation for the Pike River families?Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General): Yes and yes. The Prime Minister stands by his statement when it is read in full and in context.Hon David Cunliffe: Why when the court has awarded compensation against Pike River Coal Ltd and the Department of Labour was found sufficiently at fault for its Minister to resign has the Government decided to take no action to either compensate or enforce compensation for the families?Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: There are two parts to that question. The first is whether or not there is a legal obligation on the part of the Crown for the company that the member refers to. There is not. Then there is a second part to the question about the Department of Labour. The Government is very aware of its obligations to these families on today of all days which is why it has an ACC scheme to ensure that people are compensated. We have worked closely with the families over the past few years to try to help them through this dreadful time.Hon David Cunliffe: Why is the Minister hiding behind generalities like ACC when the Pike River partners are without husbands children are without fathers and families are without compensation and does he agree with the Minister of Labour Simon Bridges that Cabinet considered whether it had further moral obligations but decided that it did not?Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: The Government is fully aware of its obligations to these families. We are not hiding behind the ACC scheme at all. The issue is whether or not the Government has a legal obligation to pay compensation or damages and that is the issue. The member himself in his press conference has admitted as much because he said he would make an ex gratia payment without any admission of liability. There are two different things here.Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. First of all to the best of my knowledge I did not use the phrase “ex gratia” but if the Minister would care—Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is not a point of order; that is a debating matter.Hon David Cunliffe: I seek leave to table the report of the Royal Commission on the Pike River Coal Mine Tragedy in which it concludes that the Department of Labour was at fault—Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! That document has been made available to all members of Parliament.Business Growth Agenda—Progress3.TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) to theMinister of Finance: What progress is the Government making in building a more competitive and productive economy that supports more jobs and higher incomes for New Zealanders?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): The Government is making good progress. A more productive economy will be able to support higher wages for New Zealanders. Yesterday Minister Steven Joyce and I issued the 2013 progress report for the Government’s Business Growth Agenda. This covers around 350 initiatives across capital markets innovation skilled and safe workplaces natural resources infrastructure and export markets. It is all focused on creating the conditions for business to invest another dollar and employ another person for jobs and growth and for the regions to take advantage of the enormous opportunities available to them. I would recommend that the Opposition reads the update to observe the significant progress the Government has made across a broad range of economic policy.Tim Macindoe: How many of the Business Growth Agenda initiatives have been completed?Hon BILL ENGLISH: There are a large number of initiatives because there is not one significant or even half a dozen significant policies that would transform this economy. Nearly half of the 350 initiatives have now been completed and 120 more are in the implementation phase. So for example 23 of the 55 export market initiatives have been completed. They include the first phase of the New Zealand Story improving New Zealand firms’ access to international markets and a range of initiatives to increase value from tourism and from our international education sector. Work has already begun to identify future priorities for the Business Growth Agenda—Rt Hon Winston Peters: What’s No. 7? What’s No. 8? All bulldust.Hon BILL ENGLISH:—and that member would be welcome to contribute.Tim Macindoe: According to the progress report issued this week what other progress is the Government making across the Business Growth Agenda?Hon BILL ENGLISH: There are so many things to pick from. We remain on track for surplus in 2014-15. The Government has completed two Government share offers and a third is under way putting billions of dollars into the Future Investment Fund for investing in new public assets—money that we have sourced mainly from New Zealand investors rather than the preferred option for the Opposition which is foreign bankers. We have established Callaghan Innovation and made $566 million in research and development grants available over 4 years. And we have announced the 10 National Science Challenges which have fully engaged the interests of the scientific community. There are dozens more initiatives but I do not have time to go through them.Grant Robertson: They’re so riveting!Tim Macindoe: Very good indeed. I am glad the member is enjoying them. How is progress with the Business Growth Agenda being reflected in recent economic indicators?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Reasonably well and I think rather better than the Opposition would have hoped. Economic growth is gaining momentum and we have one of the fastest-growing developed economies in the world probably in the top half-dozen. Unemployment is falling 53000 new jobs were created in the past year and wages and household incomes are growing moderately. We are particularly pleased with how well the regions have done leading New Zealand out of the recession. Most regions have stronger growth and lower unemployment than for instance our larger metropolitan area of Auckland.Dr David Clark: Does he believe that a more competitive and productive economy would result from destroying a proven animal productivity innovation hub surrounding Invermay Dunedin?Hon BILL ENGLISH: As the member will know the relevant research community—that is the scientists who provide and have done for many years the high levels of research and development for the agricultural industry—has been through a process to try to decide how to do a better job of what it does. Part of the task was for that research community to explain particularly to the rural community including those in my electorate just what the benefits of the changes at Invermay would be. I am sure that that will be a fruitful discussion.Dr David Clark: I seek leave to table the most recent report which theOtago Daily Times said blew the business case—Mr SPEAKER: Order! If that is a newspaper clipping—Dr David Clark: No no the independent report.Mr SPEAKER: Is it in the public arena?Dr David Clark: It is not as far as I am aware.Mr SPEAKER: It is not. On that basis I will take the member’s word for it and I will put the leave. Leave is sought to table that particular document. Is there any objection? Yes there is.Prime Minister—Pike River Mine Compensation and Sale of Air New Zealand Shares4.Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Leader of the Opposition) to thePrime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Acting Prime Minister): Yes.Hon David Cunliffe: Does he stand by his statement that “the Government believes there is no cause of action” to help compensate the Pike River families?Hon BILL ENGLISH: I stand by the full statement in the context in which it was made.Hon David Cunliffe: Why will his Government not pursue the parent shareholder of Pike River New Zealand Oil and Gas which has received $42 million in insurance payouts since the company incurred the disaster and which has a moral obligation to contribute to the compensation of the Pike River families?Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Government has no legal means of doing so. There may be extralegal means and that might be what the member should explain because he as I understand it has announced that he will pursue the company if he is in Government. He needs to explain just on what basis he would do that.Hon David Cunliffe: Is the Prime Minister aware of whether ACC and the New Zealand Superannuation Fund were among the New Zealand Oil and Gas shareholders who voted against paying compensation?Hon BILL ENGLISH: No I am not aware of how they may or may not have voted on that matter.Hon David Cunliffe: I might be able to help the Acting Prime Minister. Given that 99 percent of the shareholders of New Zealand Oil and Gas voted against paying compensation and given that ACC owns 6 percent of it and the New Zealand Superannuation Fund owns 1.2 percent of it has he been able to work out whether they voted for or against compensation or perhaps he could ask them whether they voted for or against compensation?Hon BILL ENGLISH: I would want to look into the facts of the matter rather than rely on the member’s assertions.Hon David Cunliffe: Why when Solid Energy has been paid $1.2 million of the insurance money when none was paid out to the families has the Prime Minister taken no action in respect of Solid Energy which the Crown owns?Hon BILL ENGLISH: I am not exactly sure what connection the member is trying to draw there. I think that we need to keep in mind here that in the case of Pike River we have seen a real tragedy that has created real suffering for those families. I think that every member of Parliament would find that week to week they are also dealing with families who have suffered real tragedy although not in such large numbers. The question the member is opening up is the obligation of the Crown to deal with all of those cases in the way he is suggesting we should deal with Pike River.Hon David Cunliffe: Given that in this particular case 29 miners are dead a royal commission has found that one of his ministries is partially culpable for failing to close the mine the Minister responsible has resigned a court has ordered compensation the parent of the company now in receivership has refused to pay that compensation two Crown entities that are ultimately answerable to him through their boards have voted against the parent company paying compensation and yet another Crown entity has received insurance payouts and refused to contribute a cent has the Government honoured all of its moral obligations to the Pike River families?Hon BILL ENGLISH: The answer to that question is yes in the same way—Hon David Cunliffe: Shame!Hon BILL ENGLISH: —listen—that the Government honours its obligations to every single family in New Zealand who suffers from a death in the workplace or from a death by accident or from lifelong disability. Any Government has to keep in mind the hidden as well as the high profile tragedies.Hon David Cunliffe: Why did the Prime Minister say last Thursday that no immediate sale of Air New Zealand shares was planned and that he had not received any advice on the sale when he must have known that the sale process was going to begin in less than 24 hours?Hon BILL ENGLISH: He said it because it was correct. The decision that Air New Zealand would be sold at some stage had actually been signalled 3 years ago—almost 3 years ago—and the final decision to proceed with the transaction was made on Friday last week.Hon David Cunliffe: Is the Prime Minister aware that a day before that statement theAustralian Financial Reviewand theNew Zealand Heraldwere carrying initial reports of the imminent sale of the airline and why does he think it is fair that the so-called Kiwi mum and dad investors were kept in the dark by their own Prime Minister until Sunday while at the same time insiders sharebrokers and institutions were being told the opposite as early as the Wednesday prior?Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member is simply wrong. [Interruption] Well he is. There is a complex set of rules passed by this Parliament just recently that govern the procedure around this sort of sale. The Government has stuck to it and the member’s allegations about the Prime Minister misleading people are simply wrong.Immigration New Zealand—Performance and Reports of Illegal Immigration5.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to theMinister of Immigration: What concerns if any does he have regarding the operation of Immigration New Zealand?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister of Immigration): I am constantly concerned to ensure that the operation of Immigration New Zealand contributes to fair timely and consistent decision-making across its global network and I am pleased to report that that vigilance is paying off. Despite significant increases in demand there have been material improvements in all measures of those things when compared with the previous Government with whom that member’s party had a confidence and supply agreement.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Which part of that answer was relevant?Mr SPEAKER: Order! Is this a supplementary question?Rt Hon Winston Peters: A supplementary question. Well apparently anything goes now—but supplementary question. When did he first as Minister of Immigration become aware of Iraqi national Mr AbuTarek—real name HakimSalga—issuing false documentation to smuggle people into New Zealand?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: There is absolutely no evidence that that is the case. What I have become aware of is that one reporter has spoken to another reporter who claims to have spoken to a people-smuggler who claims to be making outrageous claims about the opportunities to emigrate to New Zealand. I can reassure the House and that member that there is absolutely no evidence of the veracity of any of those claims.Rt Hon Winston Peters: In respect of the Australian journalist and the team who tracked this man for 2 months is the Minister saying that all the evidence they got thatled them to produce a report on people-smuggling into this country—because we are a soft touch—is not true?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I am saying two things. Firstly people-smugglers are not only heinous criminals but liars. Secondly we have in association with the Customs Service and immigration officials very very good border protection processes which mean that people cannot simply board a plane and claim asylum at the border. In fact I can report that in the last 3 months there has not been a single Lebanese national who has done so. Probably in the region of four or five jumbo jets worth of people have been declined boarding on to the plane as a consequence of those processes so I am confident that it is nothing more than a heinous lie.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well then if AbuTarek—real name HakimSalga—is a liar why did he call him a people-smuggler?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Well because he is but he may well also be a people-smuggler. What I am confident of at this stage on the very good information made available by the Customs Service and Immigration New Zealand is that the claims that were made on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation’sFour Corners show last night—which I hasten to add mentioned New Zealand only once in the 45-minute show—are not correct. We are vigilant and we are continuing to monitor the situation but I am satisfied that our borders are safe.Rt Hon Winston Peters: If the Minister is proven on this issue to be wrong will he resign?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I stand by every single statement I have made. I can reassure the House that if there are errors in process they will be quickly remedied. But there is no evidence that that is the case.Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The core part of that question is simply this: if the Minister is proven to be wrong on this issue will he resign?Mr SPEAKER: Order! The question was heard by not only the Minister but members. The Minister can answer and I will address whether he addresses the question. Does the Minister wish to conclude his answer?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: No I have answered the question.Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Your ruling was that if he completes his question you could make a judgment on it then. I asked him whether if he is proven to be wrong as Minister he will resign. It is a clear enough question.Mr SPEAKER: The question was very clear; there is no doubt about that. It has now been repeated three times. The Minister was giving an answer and it was interrupted so I did not hear the last part of the Minister’s answer. I asked the Minister whether he wanted to complete his answer. He said he did not so the matter rests there if the Minister does not want to complete his answer.Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. With respect it does not rest there because my contention was that he was not answering the question. Your response was that he had not had a chance to finish it. Now when you gave him a chance to finish it he no longer wished to answer the question suggesting that I was right.Mr SPEAKER: The essence of the complication here is that the member in asking the question wants a categoric yes or no answer. He cannot insist on that and there are consistent Speakers’ rulings that say that.Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: Order! I want to be fair to the member. Can I just clarify now—I have ruled on that matter. If the member wants to raise a fresh point of order he is quiteentitled to do so but to now continue to relitigate a decision that I have made will only bring this House into disorder.Hon Winston Peters: With respect Mr Speaker I do not believe—Mr SPEAKER: Is this a fresh point of order?Hon Winston Peters: It is. I do not think that such a procedure is seen out there by the public to bring anything into disorder. They would like to know the answer as much as the House and I do. My real point is—John Hayes: So that wasn’t a real one?Rt Hon Winston Peters: No it is my real new point. For the slow-witted it is my real new point.Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will now resume his seat. This matter has now gone on for long enough. I asked the member whether he was raising a fresh point of order. All he has done is relitigate an answer whereby he wanted a clear yes or no answer. The Speakers’ rulings are quite consistent. He cannot do that. If the member rises to his feet to relitigate again I will have no choice sadly but to ask the member to leave the Chamber.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I will be back tomorrow with a better one.Mr SPEAKER: And the member is welcome to come back tomorrow with a better one.Schools Canterbury—Building and Redevelopment Projects6.NICKY WAGNER (National—Christchurch Central) to theMinister of Education: What recent announcement has she made on the single largest investment in education infrastructure in Christchurch?Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education): Tēnā koe Mr Speaker. Last week the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery and I announced that 80 percent of classrooms across Greater Christchurch will be modernised within 10 years changing the way teachers teach and children learn. The Christchurch earthquakes had the biggest impact ever on educational infrastructure in New Zealand. The damage sustained demanded a significant response and a serious investment. This Government is investing over $1 billion in a 10-year programme to provide modern learning environments for the children and young people of Greater Christchurch.Nicky Wagner: Why has the Government opted to spend $1.137 billion rather than just repair existing facilities at a lower cost?Hon HEKIA PARATA: The Government looked at a range of options for education renewal and it chose the most comprehensive option requiring the biggest investment because it will generate the greatest lift in educational achievement.Nicky Wagner: What other educational issues confront Christchurch?Hon HEKIA PARATA: The issues that confront Christchurch are those that confront New Zealand as a whole. Although our education system is top-performing for many it is not for all. This Government is focused on raising achievement for the children and young people of Christchurch and across the entire country. To achieve this the Government has been investing in and delivering on a plan to better engage with parents report on achievement data value and strengthen the teaching profession and support 21st century learning environments. The delivery of safe and inspiring modern and connected learning environments will support a lift in student engagement and drive up achievement levels across Greater Christchurch.Chris Hipkins: How much of the over $1 billion announced last week will come from money the schools were already due to receive in the form of regular property funding leaky buildings remediation and insurance payouts?Hon HEKIA PARATA: It is no secret that the $1 billion investment includes Government moneys appropriated for property it includes an insurance payout and it will include new money.Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: I just invite the member to repeat his question.Chris Hipkins: Thank you Mr Speaker. How much of the over $1 billion announced last week will come from money the schools were already due to receive in the form of regular property funding leaky buildings remediation and insurance payouts?Hon HEKIA PARATA: I cannot give you that absolute detail because we do not yet have the insurance payout and because those other matters are still being factored in. The fact is that the Christchurch community is getting over $1 billion invested which will modernise 80 percent of classrooms in that education network.Housing Affordable—First-home Buyers New Builds and Reserve Bank Intervention7.PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—TeAtatū) on behalf ofHon DAVID PARKER (Labour) to theMinister of Finance: Was he advised prior to signing the Reserve Bank Memorandum of Understanding that LVR restrictions woulddisproportionally affect first-home buyers and that regional exemptions would not apply?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): In answer to the member’s question no because the discussion prior to signing the memorandum was not a discussion of that nature. The memorandum of understanding gives effect to the macro-prudential tools for the purposes of financial stability. It covers the four tools that were discussed: adjustments to core funding ratios the counter-cyclical capital buffer adjustments to sectoral capital requirements and quantitative restrictions on the share of high loan-to-value ratio loans on residential property. As part of the consultation process required by the memorandum when a tool is being considered for use by the bank the Government is subsequently advised of a range of effects of loan-to-value ratio restrictions.Phil Twyford: Given that the Reserve Bank said last week that if it were to implement exemptions for new builds to loan-to-value ratio limits it could turn to the memorandum of understanding that it has with the Government why did he not ask the Reserve Bank or Treasury to conduct analysis on the effect of loan-to-value ratios on young first-home buyers or the regions before negotiating and signing off the memorandum of understanding?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Because that was not the purpose of the memorandum. The purpose of it was to do what the Opposition I think was actually arguing for a couple of years ago and that was to provide a framework for the use of macro-prudential tools. The member still misrepresents or misunderstands the role of the Reserve Bank. Regardless of what advice we took—and we did take advice—on the impact of loan-to-value ratio restrictions the decision maker is the Governor of the Reserve Bank.Phil Twyford: Does he agree that the fact that the Reserve Bank Governor is now suggesting that new builds might be exempted from loan-to-value ratios shows that the loan-to-value ratio policy was rushed out untested because his Government had done nothing on housing in 5 years?Hon BILL ENGLISH: No and again the question shows that the member is not really watching his portfolio area. The Government initiated the first Productivity Commission Inquiry into Housing Affordability which produced advice that we should concentrate on getting a faster supply of more houses on the ground more quickly. I would note that in recent reports from Australia which is a country that has a capital gains tax no loan-to-value ratio restrictions and a restriction on foreign buyers it now has record low participation by first-home buyers in its market as reported in the last couple of days. That tells us that first-home buyers in Australia and New Zealand bothface the same challenge and that is that the houses are just too expensive relative to their incomes and it tells us that we need to free up the supply of housing to get those ratios down.Phil Twyford: Does it not speak volumes that his Government’s 5 years of inaction in housing has brought about loan-to-value ratio restrictions a policy that disproportionately impacts on first-home buyers the young and the regions while he opposes a capital gains tax that disproportionately affects rich multimillion-dollar property speculators?Hon BILL ENGLISH: No. The Government is actually very proud of the action it has taken on housing because of the contrast to the housing market it inherited where first-home mortgage rates were 10 percent—they are currently just over 5 percent—where house prices had doubled and where we had become one of the least affordable housing markets in the developed world. That is what happened under Labour. We are very pleased to have the opportunity to fix those problems.Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi: What steps has the Government taken to support first-home buyers?Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Government has moved to ensure that within the restrictions the Reserve Bank put in place first-home buyers will get more choices. The Government has increased the number of Welcome Home Loans which means an additional 1600 first-home buyers will get priority from banks. The Government changed the criteria for accessing the subsidy from KiwiSaver which means that first-home buyers have the opportunity to pull together a bigger deposit. In the longer term we have moved to cut red tape through the Resource Management Act and local government reforms and we have moved to lower the costs of construction increase land availability and sign up accords particularly with the council of our largest market Auckland which has agreed with the Government that we should aim for 39000 new houses in the market over the next 3 years. Just a few weeks ago the Minister of Housing announced the first batch of special housing areas bringing 6000 new homes to the Auckland market.Oil and Gas Exploration—Risks and Protest Activity8.GARETH HUGHES (Green) to theMinister of Energy and Resources: Does he stand by the Prime Minister’s statement that “the reality is that there’s been 50000 wells drilled in the Gulf of Mexico since the 1960s and they’ve had a problem with one of them.”?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House)on behalf of theMinister of Energy and Resources: In the context in which it was said which was in response toGreenpeace’s report last month on worst-case oil spill scenarios yes.Gareth Hughes: Is the Minister now aware that there have been 74 spills from deep-sea wells in the Gulf of Mexico releasing greater than seven tonnes of oil—that is one in every 30 deep-sea wells—and would he call that a problem?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I am not in a position to confirm that.Gareth Hughes: Is the Minister going to adopt the VladimirPutin approach and arrest the New Zealanders in the oil-free seas flotilla who are standing up for a clean green environment safe from the risk of those one in 30 deep-sea wells spilling?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: No. It was an interesting analogy that the member decided to use. I would simply like to note then that that flotilla is out there powered by dirty diesel-guzzling engines. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! A supplementary question has been called. Gareth Hughes.Gareth Hughes: I think the Minister will find that they are yachts. My question to the Minister: as of—[Interruption] Can I continue my question?Mr SPEAKER: The member does not help himself when I call the House to order I give him a chance to ask a supplementary question and he makes an interjection. I will now ask the member to ask his supplementary question.Gareth Hughes: Thank you. As of now have any enforcement agency personnel such as the navy or police been sent to the vicinity of Anadarko’s drill ship to enforce the exclusion zone enacted by the Minister of Energy and Resources?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I am unable to answer that question.Gareth Hughes: Why did the Minister limit the civil liberties of New Zealanders in order to protect the interests of Anadarko which is partially responsible for the worst oil disaster in the world?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Firstly that question is loaded with speculation at its end. Secondly what I would say is that the enforcement arrangements are about the protection of New Zealanders’ rights.Health Services—Waiting Lists forElective Surgery9.Hon ANNETTE KING (Labour—Rongotai) to theMinister of Health: How many patients in the year to June 2013 who have been assessed as needing an operation but are unable to receive it within 5 months have been told they will not be receiving an operation at this time?Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health): As the member will know from her time I am unable to provide this information as it has never been collected nationally by the Ministry of Health and the vast majority of district health boards advise that they do not collect this data or that there were no such patients. What I can advise the member is that the number of patients who have been told they will receive elective surgery and have received it has increased by 40000 more patients this last year compared with 5 years ago. This increase in procedures means district health boards have been able to reduce the number of patients waiting at June 2013 from 7000 in June 2005 under that member—Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We all know what the question was. The Minister said he could not answer it said he did not have the information and then proceeded to answer some question that was never asked in the first place. He should have been stopped in his tracks.Mr SPEAKER: I think on this occasion the member has got a fair point. The answer was certainly lengthy enough. I invite the Hon Annette King to ask a supplementary question.Hon Annette King: If as he claimed last week and again today the ministry is not counting the number of people rejected from waiting lists because they cannot get their operation within 6 months and if as he said last week it is “incredibly difficult to measure” how does he know that only 11 people are waiting longer than 6 months for their operation as of June 2013 which he has claimed for months now?Hon TONY RYALL: It is quite simple because although the member is trying to deliberately confuse the people of New Zealand there are two separate figures. One is how many people were on the waiting list at a certain date. She keeps referring to people who did not even get on the waiting list—two separate figures.Hon Annette King: Well in light of that answer who should the public believe about the number of people being dumped off waiting lists: the specialists who deal daily with people who are in pain and who claim that his claims are nothing more than double-speak bearing no resemblance to reality or the chief executive officer of Hawke’s Bay District Health Board KevinSnee who says that district health boards are dealing with “a shortage of cash for orthopaedic operations” and “are struggling to meet demand” or the Minister who says “I [won’t] stand any criticism”?Hon TONY RYALL: Well the one person they should not believe is the person who was in a Government that cut 30000 people off hospital waiting lists and is in a party that—Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is a relatively political answer but it does not actually address the question that was asked. I can have it repeated if the Minister likes.Hon TONY RYALL: They can certainly believe the answers that are provided by me and the Ministry of Health. More people are getting operations and they are getting them faster. We are not culling 30000 people off hospital waiting lists like that member opposite did when she was in Government.Shane Ardern: What reports has the Minister seen about waiting times for patients in particular in the MidCentral District Health Board and the Waikato District Health Board?Hon TONY RYALL: Well I saw a report last week from the Opposition health spokesperson where she stood in this Parliament and claimed that there were 376 patients waiting longer than 6 months at Waikato and 161 patients waiting at MidCentral. Those numbers were a complete misrepresentation of the facts as none of those people were on a waiting list despite what Mrs King claimed. Of course this follows up on a document sent to theTimaru Herald where the numbers had been inexplicably changed in handwriting. Mrs King has yet to explain why she did this.Hon Annette King: Are the views of clinicians still important to him as he used to claim; if so will he listen to Mr Bruce Hodgson an orthopaedic surgeon who recently wrote to a general practitioner saying that the waiting list system is being run in a clearly manipulated process and that “he can’t see patients now because there are too many waiting to carry out their surgery within 5 months.”?Hon TONY RYALL: I have not seen that report at all. Based on that member’s previous behaviour in this House I would have to actually check the context and the letter. But what I can say on the matter of orthopaedic surgery is that more New Zealanders are getting orthopaedic surgery and they are getting it faster than ever before. A record 23000 patients received orthopaedic surgery last year. Canterbury District Health Board does have capacity to do more but unlike the previous Government we will not be cutting 1000 orthopaedic patients from the Canterbury waiting list like that Government did in 2006.Hon Annette King: Has he read the editorial in theSouthland Times today which says that there is no excuse for the Government keeping “truly crappy records of the level of unmet need.” in elective surgery and that it is not “morally defensible … to trivialise the suffering of … New Zealanders” as he did last week or is this another case of him not standing criticism?Hon TONY RYALL: I have read that editorial from a small provincial newspaper but I have also read the editorial in the ChristchurchPress which when referring to the Government’s performance—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am having trouble hearing the answer because of the noise. Can the Minister please continue.Hon TONY RYALL: I have also read the editorial in a very substantial provincial newspaper the ChristchurchPress which when referring to the massive increase in elective surgery under our Government says: “Those are impressive figures and it would be mean-spirited to downplay them.” What a jolly good editorial that paragraph was.Hon Annette King: I seek leave to table a letter from Bruce Hodgson orthopaedic surgeon to a general practitioner which says exactly what I said—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Leave is sought to table that particular letter from an orthopaedic surgeon. Is there any objection to that course of action? It will be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Hon Annette King: I seek leave to table 16 letters from 16 district health boards which all send these letters out to patients saying that their surgeon recommends them for surgery but it cannot be offered to them at this time making up the waiting list—Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is enough of a description. Leave is sought to table 16 letters from district health boards sent to patients. Is there any objection? There is none. They can be tabled.Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House.Freshwater Management—Protection and Water Quality of Rivers10.JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) to theMinister for the Environment: What recent announcements has she made to protect wild and scenic New Zealand rivers?Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister for the Environment): I have recently announced my decision to gazette amendments to the Kawerau River water conservation order to prevent damming on the Nevis River in Otago. A dam or diversion on the lower Nevis River would have major negative effects on its wild and scenic qualities fishing and kayaking. The amendments also add further tributaries to the order and recognise further characteristics for protection.Jacqui Dean: Why did she determine that the Nevis River required this level of protection?Hon AMY ADAMS: In weighing up whether to amend the water conservation order to add outstanding characteristics and prevent damming on the Nevis River I decided that the benefits of protecting the unique native fish species—theNevisgalaxias—the trout fisheries and the wild and scenic characteristics of the river in this case outweigh the benefits of preserving the option of a dam on this river. I was guided by the findings of the special tribunal and the Environment Court and I am of the opinion that the environmental and recreational benefits of banning future damming are more compelling in this case and of greater national benefit than any electricity generation potential on this particular water body.Brendan Horan: Does the Minister agree that if the philosophy of wairua—that the blood and bones and therefore the spirit of our ancestors flow through our scenic rivers—was adopted then there would be a much greater public commitment to protecting our scenic and wild rivers and that removing pollution would be a priority?Hon AMY ADAMS: I certainly share the member’s view that most New Zealanders want to see the quality of our freshwater waterways protected and I can assure the member that that is why this Government has made such a substantial commitment over our 5 years to protecting our freshwater waterways through much better frameworks for managing them from the creation of the Land and Water Forum the institution of the first national policy statement and just last week the announcement of the national objectives framework. This is an ongoing piece of work but I certainly do share his concern for protecting our wild rivers.Brendan Horan: Is the Minister aware of the extremely polluted state of some New Zealand rivers including for example theKaituna River particularly between Paengaroa and theMaketū River mouth and is she prepared to apply science and technology to resolve those issues?Hon AMY ADAMS: As I mentioned in the answer to the member’s first supplementary question I am certainly aware that there are a number of rivers and water bodies around the country that are of real concern to their communities. I have seen some information specifically in relation to theKaituna River which the memberrefers to. What I would say to the member is that in each of those localised situations the primary response is driven by the regional council but we are very happy to assist the regional council. I do think that the work we are developing through the Land and Water Forum and the national objectives framework will certainly help to inform that debate and the Government is absolutely committed to assisting communities in that regard.Oil and Gas Exploration—Regulation and Public Notification of Deep-sea Drilling11.MOANA MACKEY (Labour) to theMinister for the Environment: Does she stand by all her statements?Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister for the Environment): Yes in full and in the context in which they were given.Moana Mackey: Does she stand by her statements in relation to her proposal to make exploratory drilling for oil and gas a non-notified process: “I consider that this classification is appropriate because exploratory drilling takes place over a short space of time” and “exploratory drilling for oil and gas generally takes place over a period of about 4 to 6 weeks so a simplified process that retains full regulatory discretion appears to be an appropriate response.”?Hon AMY ADAMS: I have not got the text but that sounds right and I do stand by the fact that that represents the advice that I have received.Moana Mackey: If an exploratory well is successful will any appraisal wells which are wells drilled to establish the limits productivity and properties of the reservoir have to go through a separate consenting process; if not what does this do to her claimed time frame for drilling activity of 4 to 6 weeks?Hon AMY ADAMS: One of the issues that we are looking at in relation to the classification of exploratory wells—and I can remind the member in this House that no decisions have been made as to how they will be classified as yet—as part of that process we are absolutely looking at exactly what is encapsulated in the definition of exploratory well drilling. But I would point out to the member and to this House that until the passage of the exclusive economic zone regulations there was absolutely no oversight of these and this is a massive step forward in the protection of our oceans.Hon Dr Nick Smith: Can the Minister advise the House what consents were required when deep-sea drilling was done last decade?Hon AMY ADAMS: I can. The Minister of Energy and Resources granted a permit and that was it.Moana Mackey: Why has she gone out of her way to point out that exploratory drilling takes only 4 to 6 weeks as justification for removing the public’s right to have their say when she knows full well that this time frame is accurate only if the well is unsuccessful and that if successful the actual drilling period will take far longer than she has been letting on publicly?Hon AMY ADAMS: First of all I can confirm that the advice I have received consistently is that the average period of time for such drilling activities is 4 to 6 weeks as I have indicated to the House. Secondly it is impossible to remove a public right involvement that never existed. Under the Labour Government the public had zero input into these decisions. Under this process there will now be a very clearly defined process and no well will be able to move to production without every New Zealander having a chance to have a say in its drilling.Anzac Day Centenary—Commemorations at Gallipoli12.Hon TAU HENARE (National) to theMinister of Veterans’ Affairs: What progress has been made in planning for Anzac Day at Gallipoli in 2015?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister of Veterans’ Affairs): The public ballot to attend the 100th anniversary of Anzac Day at Gallipoli in 2015 opened last Friday and has seen significant interest already. The 1915 campaign is important to our history and helped to shape our nation’s identity so we expected demand to exceed the safe capacity of 10500 people which is why the ballot process was established. New Zealand was granted 2000 places and I encourage all those hoping to attend Anzac Day services at Gallipoli to enter the ballot as that is the only way they will be admitted to the peninsula.Hon Tau Henare: Has he had any updates on the ballot so far?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Yes I have. There has been strong interest in the ballot since it opened and more than 2700 people have now registered for the New Zealand ballot in just the first 4 days. But it is worth remembering that there is not an advantage to early registration. The ballot is open for another 10 weeks so there is plenty of time for anyone who is interested to enter before the ballot closes on 31 January 2014. The 100th anniversary of Anzac Day in Turkey will certainly be an important event and anyone interested in intending to enter the ballot can visit the Gallipoli 2015 website for details.Urgent Debates DeclinedState-owned Assets Sales—Air New ZealandMr SPEAKER: I have received a letter from the Hon David Cunliffe seeking to debate under Standing Order 386 the decision by the Minister of Finance and the Minister for State Owned Enterprises to commence the process to sell 20 percent of the Government’s Air New Zealand shares. This is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility.The test for whether a particular case requires the attention of the House is a high one. The decision to sell Air New Zealand shares follows the passing of the Public Finance (Mixed Ownership Model) Amendment Act in June last year when there was significant debate on this issue. Every subsequent decision made under the Act will not be of sufficient importance to justify setting aside the business of the House. I am not persuaded that the matter deserves the immediate attention of the House by way of an urgent debate. There will be other occasions on which it can be debated. The application is therefore declined.UrgencyHon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): I move That urgency be accorded the Committee stage and third reading of the Social Housing Reform (Housing Restructuring and the Tenancy Matters Amendment) Bill; the second reading and remaining stages of the Game Animal Council Bill and the Māori Television Service (Te Aratuku Whakaata Irirangi Māori ) Amendment Bill; the Committee stage and third reading of the Building Amendment Bill (No 4) the Financial Reporting Bill the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Covered Bonds) Amendment Bill the Non-bank Deposit Takers Bill the Statutes Amendment Bill the Unit Titles Amendment Bill and the Medicines Amendment Bill and any bills into which they may be divided; and the first reading and referral to select committees of the Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) the Parole Amendment Bill and the Objectionable Publications and Indecency Legislation Bill. This is another important tranche of legislation that the Government wishes to see progressed before the end of the year. You will be aware that the legislative time available to the House is running very short. There will be those who say once again that the use of urgency should be a little more measured. I would ask them to perhaps turn their argument to the amount of time that the House actuallymakes available for legislation in any given week. All of these bills are bills that have a degree of importance. A large number of them are supported across the House.Grant Robertson: Not all though.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I said a large number Mr Robertson. I certainly would not claim unanimity but a considerable number of bills are supported. There will be time for those bills that are more contentious to be fully discussed. It is my intention that the Government will seek leave for question time on Wednesday and Thursday notwithstanding the fact that we are in urgency.A party vote was called for on the questionThat urgency be accorded.Ayes64New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes56New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Motion agreed to.Business of the HouseHon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): I seek leave for there to be a question time on Wednesday and Thursday notwithstanding that the rules of urgency mean that we are in Tuesday for the balance of the week.Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. It will be so.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): I further seek leave for Wednesday 4 December to be a members’ day.Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. Leave is so granted.Social Housing Reform (Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Amendment) BillIn CommitteeDebate resumed from 12 November.Part 1 Amendments to principal Act with effect from day after Royal assent(continued)PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—TeAtatū): Tēnā koe Mr Speaker. As I was saying before I was so rudely interrupted in the earlier debate on this bill the Social Housing Reform (Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Amendment) Bill I want to focus my comments on new section 57AA inserted by clause 12 which confers on Housing New Zealand the power to impose what the Minister of Housing describes as “reviewable tenancies”. I prefer to think of it as extending insecurity of tenure to all Housing New Zealand tenants. That provision although it is also included in Part 2 of the bill is dealt with in Part 1 and gives Housing New Zealand the power to extend insecurity of tenure to all of its tenants from the day after the bill receives the Royal assent.This provision is at the heart of Labour’s opposition to this bill. I want to refer to a number of what we believe will be harmful consequences of this policy which is one of the main provisions in this bill—to extend reviewable tenancies to all Housing New Zealand tenants. I want to point the Committee to the Social Housing Outcomes Worth Study which looked at the relationship between housing conditions and hospitalisationrates in a very large cohort of Housing New Zealand tenants. What the study found was that secure housing was extremely important to the people who live in State houses and that in fact as a result of the security of tenure they had as a result of being Housing New Zealand tenants they had markedly lower hospitalisation rates for most health conditions including mental health than people who were on the State housing list. This was the basis of the submission that HeKaingaOranga the University ofOtago’s Housing and Heath Research Programme made to the Social Services Committee—that by extending insecurity of tenure to all State house tenants you would in fact be severely undermining the health status of those people.I also want to refer to the study by Regional Public Health about the movement of people out of thePōmare Housing New Zealand community a development project that was grossly mishandled under this Government by Housing New Zealand. I noticed that the Minister of Housing turned up with the cameras the other day—as he does about every 2 days at the moment—to film him turning the first sod of the new mixed development atPōmare. Well Regional Public Health found that the involuntary eviction of Housing New Zealand tenants out of that community had many negative health and social impacts on those people. It found that social ties are in many cases geographic and that forcing people out of their homes threatens the emotional support provided by neighbours. It also affects access to health care. The study found that supportive stable communities help mitigate socio-economic disadvantage by providing all kinds of resources that people get from being part of a stable community; and that forced housing relocation often involves moving kids out of schools and that has a negative effect on children’s educational achievement. That is housing insecurity of the very kind that National is proposing to impose on all 69000 State house tenants.Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister of Housing): I firstly want to say that the comments of the member Phil Twyford aboutPōmare really do highlight the contrast between the Government’s view of social housing and the Labour Opposition’s because ifPōmare is the flagship for State housing in Labour’s mode Labour is very much in the past. That is a community renowned for gang violence renowned for murders and renowned for bad social and educational achievement and what Labour wants to do is to lock in that failed State housing model. I say shame on those members. IfPōmare is what Labour stands for thank goodness Labour is not the Government.The key issue at stake in this bill theSocial Housing Reform (Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Amendment) Bill and where there is a difference between the Government and Labour members is the issue of reviewable tenancies. At heart is a position by the Government that says that social housing is for the period of need as compared with an Opposition that says that social housing is for life. The challenge I have got for Labour members is the fact that after 9 years of the best economic times in a century there were 4000 people sitting on Housing New Zealand waiting lists. The idea that you can build your way out of the demands for social housing is flawed because although Labour will champion the cause of the existing tenants of State houses we need to balance that with the needs the high needs of those 4000-odd people sitting on waiting lists.So the real question for this Committee and this bill is this: do those 4000 people on waiting lists have a greater right to the Government’s investment in social housing than those existing tenants 5000 of whom are on a market rent—5000 of whom are on a market rent? What Labour members are saying is that those who are earning sufficient to not be eligible for an income-related rent have got a greater right to a house than those families who are overcrowded those families in high need. The idealists on Labour’s benches say: “Don’t worry. You can just build a whole lot more houses.” I say to them that they had 9 years to make that work and they did not and that is why theGovernment needs to focus its social housing on those families with the greatest need. I stress to the House that 5000 State house tenants on market rents and the Government saying in its Budget that we are going to have 1000 in the first year and 2000 in the second year really show how moderate and sensible this policy is.I challenge the next Labour speaker to get to their feet and say that the Labour Party stands for a State house for life and for that house being occupied by people on high incomes. I have got a guy in my constituency who is the captain of a fishing vessel. He earns over $100000 a year. He occupies a State house. Members opposite say he has got a right to stay in that State house as long as he wants to while we have got other families on the waiting list who are in far higher need. I say those members are wrong. I am proud of the changes that are made in this bill. If we are serious about addressing the social issues in New Zealand and the health issues associated with poor housing then we need to make sure that our investment of $16 billion in State housing is used by those with the highest need.PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—TeAtatū): If it is not enough that the respected public health academics at Otago University condemn this policy in the Social Housing Reform (Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Amendment) Bill and say that there is a public health risk by Nick Smith’s announcing with fanfare that he wants to see 3000 State house tenants kicked out of their homes as a matter of Government policy and if it is not enough to consider the public health risk then let the Minister of Housing consider the words of the Productivity Commission which is his intellectual mentor. Its report on housing affordability is his intellectual bible and he quotes it at every turn. Well let me quote the Productivity Commission because it seems to be the only legitimate source of advice for the Minister. The Productivity Commission in its report on affordable housing I say to Dr Smith advises against reviewable tenancies. It does not believe that it is good policy and it believes that the approach of reviewable tenancies is not in harmony with the desire of communities for stability and continuity. It does not think that it is a good idea.I also point the Minister to the report that he claims to be the sort of genesis the inspiration of his social housing policy. I am talking about the—Hon Annette King: Advisory?PHIL TWYFORD: —yes the Housing Shareholders’ Advisory Group and its reportHome and Housed: A Vision for Social Housing in New Zealand. That report explicitly recommends against reviewable tenancies. It says: “No existing tenant should have his or her lease simply terminated … While it would in theory be possible for [the Housing New Zealand Corporation] to reassess all sitting tenants at the time of their annual rent review and give tenants adequate notice we do not support this option.” So the two most credible intellectual sources of policy makers which the Minister says have inspired his policy on Housing New Zealand explicitly counsel against reviewable tenancies. No? The Minister is shaking his head. He is right; apparently everybody else is wrong. Only the National Government would announce in its Budget that its housing policy had a target of evicting 3000 people from State houses. That says it all. This is the party that in the 1990s sold off 13000 State houses. It brought in market rentals which caused thousands and thousands of New Zealanders to crash into extreme poverty—Moana Mackey: No maintenance.PHIL TWYFORD: —and it did no maintenance on State house properties. This Minister has a different approach. He has dressed it up as if he is benevolently giving out resources to the community housing sector that he has some kind of progressive vision but in fact what we see from this Government is that he is running down Housing New Zealand. We saw it in the Salvation Army report that came out lastThursday that when this Government came to office it hiked the dividends that it demands from Housing New Zealand and it drastically cut the annual capital contributions that the Crown makes. During the duration of the last Labour Government’s stewardship of Housing New Zealand it gave a net financial contribution to Housing New Zealand of close to half a billion dollars. Well in the first 3 years of this National Government being in office it withdrew a net amount of $142 million. That Minister and his predecessor used Housing New Zealand as a cash cow to fund National’s tax cuts for the rich. That is exactly what happened. The Government squeezed it just like it did to every other State-owned enterprise and that is a disgrace.In the middle of the worst housing crisis in a generation with 4000 people languishing on waiting lists and Government agencies routinely referring people to live in campgrounds this Minister uses Housing New Zealand a social housing agency mandated with putting a decent roof over the heads of the poorest and most vulnerable New Zealanders as a cash cow to fund National’s tax cuts. Well that is an absolute disgrace. He cannot dress up this bill and this policy as if they were some great benevolent thing to the community housing sector. The Government is running down Housing New Zealand. This bill takes away the core powers of Housing New Zealand and it sets out to distribute the housing stock to the charity and NGO sector. This is the end of Housing New Zealand as we know it. This Minister will be responsible for stripping Housing New Zealand of its powers and its housing stock. It is just the latest reincarnation of National’s hostility to State housing.CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka): I was in my office as this debate on the Social Housing Reform (Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Amendment) Bill began and I heard Nick Smith the Minister of Housing speaking about the community ofPōmare. I noticed that Nick Smith was quite happy to come to turn the sod atPōmare earlier this week when there are new houses to be built but he was nowhere to be seen nor was his predecessor Phil Heatley when all of the tenants who used to live there were being evicted and their homes were being demolished. They were completely invisible. I say to Nick Smith that yes that was a community that had a few problems. Those problems have not gone away by driving all of those people out and demolishing the homes that they live in. They have simply been relocated somewhere else. Actually if this Government was genuinely concerned about addressing the problems that communities likePōmare faced then it would be concerned about the issues around equality and the massively growing level of inequality that we are seeing in New Zealand.The approach inPōmare is absolutely disgraceful. What the Government did was that it said: “This is a community with problems.” It evicted all the tenants and it demolished all the houses. Over 100 houses are already demolished and more are on the chopping block more still to go. And what is the solution now? It is going to build new houses there and about 80 percent of those will be privately owned homes—privately owned homes. So basically if we are lucky out of the 100 or more houses to be demolished there might be 20 new Housing New Zealand houses. Overall there was one comment that Nick Smith made at the sod turning on Monday that I did agree with where he said that if we are building new housing developments it is desirable to have a mixture of private housing and State housing. But in this case as with every other case we are losing more State houses than we are gaining. So overall the total number of State houses is being reduced.If Nick Smith was saying: “We are going to build 20 new houses a year and then we are going to have 80 private new developments or other forms of development but then we are going to build 80 more elsewhere to replace the other 80 that we demolished.” I would actually be OK with that. But that is not what the Government is saying. TheGovernment is busily demolishing State houses—and I notice that the Minister of Housing snuck into Trentham the other day unannounced because no doubt that is the next area where we are going to see dozens of State houses demolished and replaced with private homes. Well again that community was driven out—driven out under the pretence in this case of earthquake damage or potential earthquake damage to the buildings. I am going to be very interested to see what happens when they tie a whole lot of trucks around them and try to pull them to pieces because those buildings still seem to be standing. Having said all of that of course we want those buildings to be earthquake-proofed and so on. But driving people out of their homes and leaving those homes empty and boarded up for over a year as they have been now is not dealing with the issue. So why is this relevant to this debate? Because the Government is introducing reviewable tenancies in line with its overall goal to reduce the number of New Zealanders who are living in State houses. That is its goal. It is going into this saying that at least 3000 New Zealanders will basically be thrown out of their homes.We have to go back and look at the history of State housing in New Zealand to understand how we have got to where we are today. Once upon a time everyone lived in a State house—or a whole chunk of the country lived in a State house.Hon Dr Nick Smith: No that’s not true.CHRIS HIPKINS: Well middle-class families previously lived in State housing and in the postwar period there were significant numbers of people who ended up moving into public or State housing. Our societal expectations around who can live in State houses have certainly changed. Some of those people have lived in those State houses for all of their adult lives and Nick Smith and this Government are basically saying they do not care about that. They are happy just to throw those people out and force them to go and find new places to live. I do not think that is right. I do not think that is fair.I also think that the Government has failed to consider the significant impact on tenants when they are required to move. Consider a family with children. Those children might be attending the local school and might find that the next place that they get is not in the same neighbourhood. That is a massive upheaval for that family. Those kids are going to have to leave their local school and with all of the upheaval that that involves—Moana Mackey: And the costs.CHRIS HIPKINS: And there are the costs of course. There may be new school uniforms—all of those things. And Nick Smith says: “Don’t worry about it. Not the Government’s problem.” I think that that is the Government’s problem because I think that is wrong.Consider the fate ofPōmare School.Pōmare School 4 or 5 years ago before National came into Government had several hundred pupils. Nick Smith Phil Heatley and the National Government came in and demolished all of those houses andPōmare School now has fewer than 100 kids enrolled for next year. Of course there are over 100 new houses being built there so that school will eventually have a roll that will go up again. What does the school do in the meantime? It went to the Government and said: “We’ve got this transitional problem.” and the Government did nothing. The Government said: “We don’t care. We’re not interested. We don’t want to know.”JACINDA ARDERN (Labour): I am surprised at getting the call—thank you Mr Chair. I am pleased to take a call on this bill the Social Housing Reform (Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Amendment) Bill. We are debating I believe Parts 1 through 6. But in debating these parts of the bill I think it is really important that we keep the context of the number of houses that we are presently talking about. Currently in terms of our housing stock social housing—State housing—makes up 5 percent ofthe available stock out there in New Zealand. We are not talking about a large number of houses. It is very clear that the need and the demand are much higher. But this bill certainly gives the sense that we are shuffling around the deckchairs of theTitanic and there are not enough to go around for everyone. Instead of saying “Someone get more chairs.” we are simply setting a whole lot of additional strict criteria to determine who gets to sit down.I am going to end that analogy there and go on to Part 1 of the bill which sets out in quite a bit of detail the ability of Housing New Zealand to review tenancy at any point. It also puts in a large range of circumstances under which Housing New Zealand can simply review at any point someone’s eligibility to remain in their home. I start with new section 56 inserted by clause 11 which sets out a tenant’s duty to advise changes of circumstances. New section 56(1) states: “Every person to whom any HNZ housing is let at an income-related rent must promptly advise HNZ of—(a) any change in the person’s circumstances likely to result in the payment of a higher income-related rent;”. I really want to just question via the Minister in the chair the Minister of Housing—if you are anticipating whether or not something is likely to impact on your income then that is a really precarious test to apply.I think here of what has happened for the welfare State in particular. That is probably the most comparable area where for instance those who are in receipt of State benefits are required to phone in their hours worked as they anticipate them to be to Work and Income on a weekly basis. Sometimes that is out of alignment with what an employer assesses via their payslip and via what they respond to the Inland Revenue Department as having been their hours worked. A lot of people living in State houses will be in precarious work. They will be working hours that fluctuate. They might be working shifts or be in seasonal work so anticipating whether or not they are likely to be dropping in and out of Housing New Zealand’s requirement around their income test is quite a difficult test.I would also like to hear from the Minister whether there is data matching going on with Housing New Zealand as is the case now with Work and Income. Suddenly Work and Income once it starts trying to bring these two pieces of information together says “Ah ha! Masses of people are trying to defraud the system.” Not the case. In fact what we have is simply a range of overpayment and underpayment based on people reporting the hours they believed they have worked before they have actually received their payslip. Are we going to have a similar situation with people falling inside and outside what is likely to be eligibility given this frequent testing and now given these tests that tell a tenant that they must anticipate whether or not they are eligible? Potentially we may see the same issues as we have seen with Work and Income. I would like to specifically know from the Minister whether the same data-matching exercise with the Inland Revenue Department is going on with Housing New Zealand as there is with Work and Income.I want to come then to Part 1 down to clause 12. It sets out the circumstances under which Housing New Zealand may review housing eligibility. The thing that the Minister does not seem to acknowledge here and he talks generally about the idea that the waiting lists are so high that it is unfair to have anyone—it seems to be anyone paying market rents for State housing that seems to be a problem from the Minister’s perspective. What he fails to acknowledge is that some people who are paying market rents for State houses are simply people who cannot find housing anywhere else. Come to central Auckland Minister and I will introduce you to a range of sole parents who cannot rent a house in the private rental market. Demand is extraordinary in some parts of Auckland. They have become desperate enough that they will go to Housing New Zealand even though they do not want to be in front of Housing New Zealand. Theyknow that there is high need and they do not see themselves as being amongst the category of individuals who would need to call on Housing New Zealand. But what do you do Minister if you have a child under the age of 5 and you cannot find a home after 6 months? What do you do? In desperation many people go to Housing New Zealand. So—Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister of Housing): The first thing that was extraordinary about that contribution from Jacinda Ardern was that she said that New Zealand needs more housing. Well I simply ask that member why she opposed at every single step the special housing area in the housing accords legislation which was supported unanimously by the Auckland Council for 39000 more houses in Auckland. She cannot stand up and give speeches saying that we need to increase housing supply when she and her colleagues have done everything possible to oppose increasing housing supply.In speaking to this bill the Social Housing Reform (Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Amendment) Bill I need to expose the contribution of half-truths from Phil Twyford. He said that the reportHome and Housed: A Vision For Social Housing in New Zealand opposed reviewable tenancies. That is absolutely untrue. It is true that it said that you should not review everybody’s tenancy every single year. Well we on this side of the Chamber support that. We say that we should review those tenancies when it is clear that people’s circumstances have changed and when they no longer have the needs that entitled them to social housing. He is being grossly misleading in that respect.But I have got to tell you that the real big daddy of misrepresentation and trying to retell history was when Mr Twyford said that Labour made major investments in the quality of its State housing. I nearly choked on my water when I heard those views. Let me give the member the numbers. When National came into Government in 2008 how many of the 69000 State houses had been insulated? I know that my colleague Phil Heatley would know. He came in as the Minister of Housing. Those members say that this Government has under-invested in State housing so let me give the Committee the numbers. Every single State house that can be insulated—40000 of them—will be insulated by the end of next month. What an extraordinary achievement.Let me give you the numbers in another way. This Government each year has insulated 10 times as many houses per year as these socialists opposite who shed crocodile tears about State housing tenants but ignored their needs for more than a decade. Let me give the hard numbers: $2.9 billion is being invested in this year’s Budget in Housing New Zealand—$2.9 billion. Let us look over the 9 years of massive surpluses—the best economic times in half a century. Labour spent less than half that amount—less than half that amount.Let us take the other half-truth. The member Phil Twyford says: “Oh look at the size of the dividends that the Government has taken from Housing New Zealand.” but he forgets to mention that yes there are two transactions that occur between the Government and Housing New Zealand. There is the amount the Government pays each year to Housing New Zealand for providing housing services and the amount the dividend that comes back. The Government has increased the amount it pays Housing New Zealand by $160 million per year a record. Let me give you the numbers. In Labour’s last year in Government it was under $500 million per year; this financial year it is $670 million. That is a massive increase in difficult financial times and it shows the level of commitment that this Government has to social housing.The last point I want to make is in terms of the contribution from Chris Hipkins. He objects to the grotty State houses inPōmare being demolished so that we can reinvest in new far better quality housing.Hon Annette King: No he didn’t.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well actually let me say to Madam King that if you are going to build new houses you actually have to demolish the old ones. That is actually a physical reality. I would love the next Labour member to explain how Labour is not going to demolish any houses but is going to do redevelopments in suburbs. Look the Opposition’s approach to this bill is flaky it is as shallow as a bird bath and it actually shows that those members have done no new thinking on how we can better deliver social housing for New Zealanders.Hon ANNETTE KING (Labour—Rongotai): I have to say to the Minister of Housing that he is getting rather overexcited. I suggest that maybe he calms done if he is going to take another call because one thing that Chris Hipkins the very good member for Rimutaka did not say was that he wanted to keep crappy houses inPōmare. He is very aware that there were substandard houses there that need to be replaced but maybe the Minister does not know that for 5 long years those houses atPōmare were left neglected run down and empty—emptied out by this Government—with nothing happening to them. So maybe the Minister needs to get more up to date on what is actually happening. For example he said that Labour wanted to keep gang members inPōmare. Does the Minister know where they have gone now? Has he any idea what has happened to them? Come on Minister. Where have the gang members gone now? They have been rehoused somewhere else. They do not just disappear in a puff of smoke and no longer exist Minister. They are rehoused somewhere else. So what a pathetic argument that was.The other thing the Minister said was that you cannot build your way out of a social housing crisis. I know that if the Minister was in his own electorate he would be visiting the Salvation Army and telling those people what a wonderful job they do how much he values them and how much he likes them. Well if that is the case Minister—and he is nodding—why does he not agree with the Salvation Army which said exactly that last week? It said that what you have to do is build your way out of the social housing problem in New Zealand. You are not going to solve the social housing problem in New Zealand by shifting the houses around as to who owns and runs them. You actually need to have more houses in New Zealand.Even the Government’s own mates The New Zealand Initiative—that right-wing thinktank—said that we are 80000 houses short in New Zealand. And then he mentioned—I am just replying to the Minister himself—the captain of a ship who is in a State house in Nelson. How long has he been there Minister? How long have you been in Government? Has he been there 5 years? Has this Government moved him on? Is he paying market rent? What responsibility does the Minister take for a captain living in a State house for 5 years? That is the very thing he would have criticised a Labour Government for.I have to tell you that I have now known Nick Smith in a number of portfolios and unfortunately like most of his portfolios he is out of touch. I say bring back Phil Heatley because at least Phil Heatley understood the housing portfolio. You see Nick Smith was out of touch with the local government portfolio he was out of touch when he had the ACC portfolio and now he is out of touch and ignorant when it comes to the housing portfolio. He claims many things that are not true. For example he claimed that the Housing Shareholders’ Advisory Group was in favour of reviewable tenancies. That is totally untrue. This is what the report explicitly recommends. The group recommends against reviewable tenancy for existing tenants. Did you know that Minister? You said the absolute opposite a minute ago. This is what the report says: “No existing tenant should have his or her lease simply terminated. Here we have been guided by the principle of ‘offer not push’. While it would in theory be possible for [Housing NewZealand] to reassess all sitting tenants at the time of their annual rent review and give tenants adequate notice”—Hon Dr Nick Smith: That’s right.Hon ANNETTE KING: —“we do not support this option.” The Minister said “That’s right.” but he did not wait for me to finish its full statement.Hon Dr Nick Smith: Half-truths.Hon ANNETTE KING: What did the group say Minister? Half a truth you gave then. It said: “we do not support—”Hon Dr Nick Smith: Full quote. Read the full quote.Hon ANNETTE KING: Yes full quote. Let me read the full quote: “we do not support this option”. Do not tell me to read the full quote Minister; read it yourself. Read it yourself.And then we have some of the most informed people in New Zealand talking about reviewable tenancies. They made submissions on the bill.Philippa Howden-Chapman—no one could doubt her credibility. She put in a submission with others to the bill. She said: “We do not support the introduction of reviewable tenancies for all state tenants because of: the lack of evidence provided for its efficacy; its cost; the health effects of the lack of security of tenure; the health effects of displacement; and the health effects of moving people from state to private rental housing; and the effect on children’s education.”DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): This Social Housing Reform (Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Amendment) Bill is the most objectionable and Draconian bill that this Government has produced in this term in my view. In Part 1 not only are there very extensive powers of investigation of existing tenants or any prospective tenant to see whether they remain eligible for income-related housing but there are several new clauses that effectively set up Housing New Zealand as New Zealand’s housing police and authorise Housing New Zealand to set aside the Privacy Act. This bill shows yet again how the National Government has little regard for privacy as it did in the much-reviled Government Communications Security Bureau Amendment Act recently pushed through this House.New section 59 in clause 14 says: “For the purposes of a review … HNZ may request any person to—(a) answer questions; or (b) allow HNZ to inspect any document or other written information; or (c) give HNZ—(i) a copy of any document or other written information; or (ii) a printout of any information stored digitally. (2) The person does not have to comply with the request but (for the purposes of section 7(1) of the Privacy Act 1993) this subsection authorises the person to make personal information available in response to the request.”So much then for personal privacy in New Zealand with legislation like that. The provision effectively nullifies the Privacy Act and it is unnecessary when Housing New Zealand can satisfy itself in other ways about the eligibility of a person for housing without compromising the Privacy Act in that way.Under new section 59AA Housing New Zealand may require information for certain purposes. Housing New Zealand “may by written notice require information from any person” concerning housing assessment or reviews. Under new section 59AA(1) this may be for “(f) the purpose of determining and detecting whether a person has committed or is committing an offence … (g) the purpose of determining and detecting the cost of fraud … (h) the purpose of ascertaining whether a person has failed or refused to answer fully or has deliberately given a false or misleading answer to any question … ”. In requiring such information Housing New Zealand must do so only in accordance with a code of conduct but any person “from whom information is required… must comply with the requirement—(a) no later than 5 working days after the notice … [and] without charge …”.The only exceptions are that the section does not “(a) require any person to provide any information or produce any document that would be privileged in a court of law: [or] (b) require any person to provide any information or produce any document that is legally professionally privileged.” and it does not apply to financial information such as receipts or financial transactions. But that still leaves a lot of information that any person must provide when required to do so. That information is then used for reviewing the eligibility of tenants terminating a tenancy and reallocating or reassigning Housing New Zealand housing to a tenant.The offences are in new section 61AB under which it is an offence for any person not to provide information required by Housing New Zealand and there is a fine of up to $2000 for that. And it is an offence to mislead Housing New Zealand. It is even an offence under new section 61AC for any person to deliberately omit to do or say anything if the purpose is for another person to be eligible or continue to be eligible to be allocated Housing New Zealand housing. For this heinous crime any person who does so commits an offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to a fine not exceeding $5000 or both.The only redeeming provisions in this Draconian part of the bill are those relating to the code of conduct and the role of the Privacy Commissioner. But overall the impression is given that State house tenants under National’s amended legislation will be treated much more like the inmates of the Gulag Archipelago than as tenants needing respect security and long-term housing solutions instead of being constantly subject to reviews and investigations.JAN LOGIE (Green): I too would like to speak to some of the overarching issues that relate to reviewable tenancies and the approach that this Government is taking in relation to State housing. I think the Government has made a major shift away from our common understanding of the purpose of State housing and the role of our Government in providing housing. I would like to remind the Committee that it was a National Government that initially established some of our State housing policy and also opposed the extension of urban limits as an approach to providing more housing. It recognised that as a country we desperately need to have secure healthy housing for our population and that when we have that we all benefit. It recognised that if we put the most vulnerable people out on the fringes they become more vulnerable because they are reliant on extra transport and that is often not there and that undermines their ability to participate more widely in the community.But this Government really has lost its way and this bill the Social Housing Reform (Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Amendment) Bill is a very significant demonstration of that. What it does is set up a review of tenure for State housing. The Minister of Housing has talked about examples of very wealthy people in State houses and what a travesty that is—how shocking when we have a limited resource—and how we need to make sure that those people are not taking up that resource. But I would like to remind the Minister that actually this bill does a lot more than that. It will review the tenancies of families with children. It will put their tenancies at risk. Though the Government has told us that there is some leniency available in this bill it is not spelt out that it will protect older New Zealanders in their houses so that they will not be kicked out. They are not protected in this bill. The Government has also told us that it will protect people with disabilities and/or mental health issues but that is not written in this bill.What this bill does is set up a process where people will feel insecure some people will be kicked out of their houses and families with children will lose security oftenure. The Minister is shaking his head but that is what is in this bill. That has really significant costs for those families and for all of us.I have been a renter for most of my life and the way the private rental market operates in this country is that there is a lot of churn. While I was renting I often moved twice a year for reasons such as that the landlord’s situation changed or my situation changed or the rent went up. The cost of that is huge—to get the movers and to put on the power—and that is the cycle we are potentially putting people into. The private rental market is overinflated and the condition of the housing is worse. So we are putting some of our most vulnerable families into exceptionally vulnerable situations and we are increasing their costs which is taking money away from those families in this country who have the least. I do not think that that is consistent with the vision that we all share as New Zealanders of this idea of a society where we are all looked after. This bill does not look after our most vulnerable people and it does not look after our vision of an inclusive society.The Dunedin School of Medicine of the University of Otago was very clear in its message in response to this policy point saying that the longer a family is able to stay in a State house the better the health outcomes for children. This bill is going to cost the health of our most vulnerable children. The Government is putting in these token efforts around rheumatic fever when we know that one of the main drivers of rheumatic fever is overcrowding and poor-quality housing. Here we are putting through a bill that actually threatens initiatives that might help the health of those children. It is dishonest to put forward some money in here and say: “We really care about this issue”—MOANA MACKEY (Labour): I want to talk about the reviewable tenancies in Part 1 of the Social Housing Reform (Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Amendment) Bill as well. I have been looking through the proposed legislation—proposed new section 57AC “HNZ may investigate circumstances of prospective tenant” and proposed new section 57AD “HNZ may investigate circumstances relevant to continued eligibility” and it goes on and on and on and on. It strikes me that this is what you have to have when you get rid of tenancy managers; when you basically have words in legislation replacing what tenancy managers at Housing New Zealand used to do every single day. I think I would rather have human beings in control of the well-being of some of our most vulnerable families than words on a bit of paper guided by an overarching policy framework that is to evict 3000 families from their homes.That is essentially what proposed new sections 57AA to 59AA actually do. If you had actually talked to one of those people we used to call “tenancy managers” what they would tell you consistently is that yes they do try to move tenants on when their circumstances change; yes they do take into account factors like the health of the individuals and whether they have children in local schools; and yes—because remember tenants go through an income-related rent process every single year—they do find out when tenants’ circumstances change. But they say that the biggest single reason why tenants do not move on is not as the Minister of Housing has been saying that they are selfish nasty and do not want to give up their house to someone else; it is that they have nowhere to move to—they have nowhere to move to. That is why people stay in State houses when their circumstances change.The second reason why they may be reluctant to move is because they cannot afford it. It is because the cost of moving is significant. If you consider what this Government has done in its residential tenancy legislation—which requires any letting fee to be charged to the tenant rather than to the landlord—paying letting fees bonds and rent in advance and the cost of actually moving are expenses these families cannot afford. That is the reason they are not moving Minister—that is the reason. They have nowhere tomove to and Nick Smith says they are selfish for not wanting to be homeless. Well I have to say that kind of sums up this Government’s approach to housing.The reality is we did not have an issue with this when we let tenancy managers do their job and develop relationships with their tenants. There is actually incredibly high turnover in Housing New Zealand houses. These are not as the Minister is suggesting a whole block of people just staying there and refusing to move. There is a lot of turnover in these houses but if people have nowhere to move to then all we are doing is evicting families into homelessness. It is a shame that this National Government is saying that that is an appropriate policy to be putting forward in this bill.The Minister when he made his comments earlier gave a challenge to the Labour Party asking how you redevelop communities without demolishing houses. I have an answer for him. The answer is that you do what Labour was doing in theTāmaki Transformation Programme where you guarantee that the number of State houses will stay the same but the proportion will go down. So there will be more houses in general mixed tenancies but the number of State houses will stay the same. That was a guarantee that we gave to those tenants and this National Government broke that when it decided that the number of State houses would go down. So there is a response to the Minister’s question.Part 1 of this bill is deeply deeply disturbing for the many families whom it affects. Yes there are a number of families on market rents in State houses. In the provinces Housing New Zealand plays a very different role as the Minister should know from what it does in the cities. Sometimes people will be on a market rent not because their income is high but because the rents in the local region are low on average but there is no alternative rental housing. In the provinces we are very very short of adequate rental housing and Housing New Zealand is a significant contributor to that. These are not rich families. These are not families who are rolling around in money filling up State houses because of some selfish desire to keep people out. These are families who are on low incomes but because the average rental across that area is also relatively low they are on a market rent. But they are not rich and they have no alternative.We have about 60 State houses sitting empty in Gisborne while we have families in garages and families living in cars because this Government says they are too rich to be able to access a State house. Well I can tell you that they are not rich. I can tell you that those State houses are a very valuable asset for our community. We would be able to house people in them tomorrow if they were not being readied for sale—because that is what is happening up and down the country. That is what Part 1 of this bill is all about actually. That is what reviewable tenancies are all about—getting people off the waiting list. Let us remember that the Government scrapped the category C and D portions of the waiting list; it said that those people were rich. Well they were not—not at all. That move culled 5000 people—Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North): I rise to take a call on the Social Housing Reform (Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Amendment) Bill which we will not be supporting in this Committee. It is a bill that takes us backwards rather than forward. It is a bill put forward by a Government that is clearly out of touch. In a time of widening inequalities we have here the removal of facilities for those who are most in need. Instead it seems to be a Government that is distracted by doing deals with cronies.I recently attended the Salvation Army report launch for the reportGive Me Shelter an assessment of New Zealand’s housing assistance policies. That report just out shows that the Government has been dropping down its capital contributions to Housing New Zealand and upping its dividends. If I can quote it found between 2002 and 2012 that “Over the seven years of its oversight the Labour-led government providedHousing New Zealand with $758 million in capital contributions and received $272 million in dividends leaving a net $486 million in funds in the Corporation. Over the three years of its oversight the National-led government has provided the Corporation with $129 million in capital contributions received $271 million in dividends resulting in a net $142 million withdrawal of funds from the organisation.” I think those following the debate at home on the wireless or on the television will see the pattern here. We had a Labour Government that was investing in supporting those most in need and we have a National Government that is pulling the rug out quite literally from under families who are struggling in this difficult time who are enduring the National Government.One of the other points that was made in that report was that the real value of benefits as they drop relative to the cost of living has made housing so much more unaffordable for the most vulnerable members of our society. There is an extensive array of charts and tables in the back of that very detailed assessment and I recommend that anyone who is interested and who is following this debate should get a copy of the Salvation Army reportGive Me Shelter. It is damning. It does ask for a really major rethink of housing policy particularly social housing policy in this country and that is a fair thing to call for.This bill clearly is designed to fulfil National’s vision of a contestable market—of that there can be little doubt—for social housing. Labour does not share the view that the Government should just be one player amongst many. We have a view that the expansion of community-sector social housing is a core function of the State. The Government should not duck its responsibilities in this area. In fact in part this tinkering this cutting and chopping here there and everywhere is symbolic of a Government that has failed to manage the economy effectively and is looking at ways to chop the pie up differently and attribute even smaller parts to those who need it most.The bill itself of course was a rushed mess. Supplementary Order Paper 390 is a fairly thick document. I think anyone watching on their television at home will be able to see that. I note that even on the Table in the middle here the original bill has not been supplied because in the rushed rewrite most of the content is different. It is no longer worth reading the original bill. This has been a messy process and that speaks to the ad hoc nature of the bill and the lack of an overarching vision for social housing. Five years of a lack of vision has seen State housing decline.I note also in the regulatory impact statement on the social housing reform programme that some key lines have been removed. But just above those removed lines under the heading “Limitations on the Analysis Undertaken” it says: “Without decisions on the specific components of the final framework the analysis that can be undertaken by officials is constrained.” Right up front in the regulatory impact statement that we have been supplied with is an admission that the analysis of it is constrained. Then we learn that that was followed by a complete rewrite of the bill. This is a shambles. This not how good policy is made. This is not how visionary policy is made.Phil Twyford: “Calamity” Smith.Dr DAVID CLARK: This is the work my colleague says of Nick “Calamity” Smith. The parts that have been removed immediately after the admission of constraint are protected under the Official Information Act 1982 section 9(2)(f)(iv). Anyone who has redacted documents as an official will know that that is the section protecting Minister’s confidentiality. So basically it is the section that says that you cannot know because we are not going to tell you. It is that wonderful thing in the Official Information Act that says that Ministers might still be making decisions on things but anyway they are not going to tell you the details of what they are considering. So notonly do we have a constrained analysis of a bill that was then completely rewritten but we have the detail of what is still going on withheld from the public and withheld from the members of Parliament who must debate the bill.This all points to a shambles of a process. It says that the Government really does not have an idea of what it is going to do with social housing. But the one thing that is clear is that it is going to try to pull back expenditure so that it can afford more generous deals in other areas that it is interested in. We think immediately of the corporate welfare for Skycity the RioTinto corporate welfare where there was not even a jobs guarantee asked for and what looks like an imminent handout to Chorus. The Government is very keen and quick to support corporate players that are struggling but it is somewhat more reticent when it comes to the individuals at the bottom of the heap who are struggling the most.In this regulatory impact statement we also find on page 3 some interesting analysis. The problem definition says that “A range of problems exist with the current market for social housing in New Zealand including: state housing is not well matched to need; there is a lack of alternatives to state housing that offer security of tenure and affordability; government financial assistance for housing is inequitable; increasing demand is likely to create fiscal pressures in the future that may be difficult to manage under the current state provider model.” There are four issues raised here. The Government seems focused on dealing only with the fourth one. It seems to want to get there as quickly as it can to cut costs where it is delivering services to the most vulnerable obviously as I have said so that it can put more money the way of those who are already at the top of the heap. But it is not addressing the other three problems that are clearly identified in points one two and three: “state housing is not well matched to need; … a lack of alternatives to state housing that offer security of tenure and affordability; [and] government financial assistance for housing [being] inequitable.” Those are all problems identified by the Government’s own officials that are not adequately addressed in this legislation.This is a Government that is tinkering and that is not making the real change that is needed to provide secure housing for our most vulnerable citizens. It is a Government that has as vacant underutilised or overcrowded over 9000 properties or 14 percent of the State housing portfolio. That is just a shambles and the Minister of Housing must stand up and explain why he is doing this higgledy-piggledy approach. Is he being stymied by a Cabinet that has other priorities? Is it the case that he is getting around to dealing with things or is it just that he is incompetent?This bill takes New Zealand nowhere except backwards. It removes security for those who are most vulnerable and it does not outline a vision of a better New Zealand that we would all hope for the kind of vision that Labour is presenting with itsKiwiBuild programme with affordable power prices and the like. We want a future that works for all New Zealanders a fair and just society where all live in dignity an environment that we can protect and a nation that we can all be proud of. Instead this bill takes us backwards. It is a sign of a Government that is out of touch that is not in touch with the widening inequalities and that is arrogant and not listening to New Zealanders.This bill needs to be voted down. I urge the Government to reconsider its options and present a decent policy that we could own across the House—one that looks out for those most in need one that addresses the policy problems identified by the Government’s own officials and one that is actually a step forward for New Zealanders.SUE MORONEY (Labour): Thank you Mr Chair for allowing me the opportunity to speak in this debate on the Social Housing Reform (Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Amendment) Bill. Here we are again. We are in urgency. I think thatjust about says it all really pushing this through in urgency. I think nothing actually more describes how chaotic this Government’s approach is to social housing than the fact that my colleague who just took his seat Dr David Clark is absolutely right. The Government is in complete chaos when it comes to actually first understanding the housing needs of New Zealanders and second identifying the right solution to fix the problem.Here in Part 1 the Government demonstrably gets it wrong. It absolutely gets it wrong. Nick Smith the Minister of Housing made a big deal before about being concerned about the 4000 New Zealanders who are lucky enough—and I would have to say “lucky” under this Government—to have made it on to the waiting list for Housing New Zealand properties. Well if the Minister was genuinely concerned about those 4000 people and their families on that waiting list then he would be doing something about the number of houses available in the housing stock.That is the fundamental issue Dr Smith. I think my colleague Jacinda Ardern put it very well when she used the analogy of that party game—I think we in New Zealand have all grown up and participated in it—musical chairs where you have a number of chairs and when the music stops everyone has got try to find a chair. The secret to that is that you keep taking away a chair every time. That is what this Government is doing. That is exactly what this Government is doing. It is reducing the housing stock available for Housing New Zealand tenants and that is the basis of this problem.It is not going to be fixed by just putting more and more pressure on and giving less and less security for the housing of those who are currently Housing New Zealand tenants. That is not going to resolve the issue for the lucky 4000. I call them the “lucky 4000” not because actually their circumstances are that lucky but because there are many many people who cannot even get on the waiting list for Housing New Zealand properties because they are not deemed to be needy enough. We used to call them priority C and D actually. Under a Labour Government they used to actually get on to a waiting list and were recognised as having a housing need. Under this Government they are no longer even recognised as having a housing need.So what is this Government’s response to that? Well I also attended the launch of the report from the Salvation Army—its very important reportGive Me Shelter: An Assessment of New Zealand’s Housing Assistance Policies—and I was shocked. Even though I know the track record of this Government I was shocked to learn that it has been bleeding Housing New Zealand dry of capital investment.What do we mean when we say “capital investment”? I just want to make sure people at home understand this. We are talking about the funding to build more houses. That is why capital investment is so important. Here is what has happened—here is what the Salvation Army found. It found that over the 7 years of oversight by a Labour-led Government we provided Housing New Zealand with $758 million in capital contributions—that is funds to build more State houses. And at that time the Government received $272 million in dividends leaving a net $486 million in funds in the corporation. However over the 3 years of its oversight the National-led Government has provided the corporation with just $129 million in capital contributions. That compares with the $758 million in capital contributions coming from the Labour-led Government.So it is absolutely easy to see what is going on here. The Government is requiring more dividends but giving less money for capital investment. That means fewer houses are being built. It is as simple as that. The chair has been taken away. And then another chair is taken away and another chair is taken away. So if Dr Smith really does care about those 4000 tenants then he would be taking an approach of ensuring that there were more capital contributions going into the Housing New Zealand Corporationrather than using that money as he has to fund tax cuts for the rich. That is what has happened. That is what has happened with that big amount of money under this Government. It has gone into tax cuts for people who did not need it quite frankly and out of the pockets of people who desperately need housing.Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister of Housing): I want to put the record straight in respect of a point that has been made by two members Dr Clark and Sue Moroney about the Government’s funding for Housing New Zealand because they are telling half-truths and grossly misrepresenting the situation. Let me tell members the numbers because I have them in front of me. The average dividend per year that was taken from Housing New Zealand by the previous Labour Government was $44 million per year—that is true. It is also true that the dividend that the Government is taking this year from Housing New Zealand is $70 million. Members of the Opposition are then concluding that the Government is not giving Housing New Zealand as much money. But what they are overlooking is how much the Government pays Housing New Zealand each year for services for the provision of housing. In Labour’s last year in Government that amount of money was $500 million per year. This year that figure is $700 million per year.Sue Moroney: But that’s not building more houses.Phil Twyford: Talking about capital.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well no the members are simply saying “Oh” but that is not what they said. Neither Phil Twyford nor Sue Moroney nor Dr Clark—Phil Twyford: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I do not know what sort of disability the Minister has but he repeatedly mispronounces my name.The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Order! Please sit down. If the member has a point of order he should not cast overall aspersions on the member Nick Smith.Phil Twyford: He should pronounce my name correctly.The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Well I will just finish that point. I do not actually understand what the member was trying to say because he began by attacking the member and that is not what a point of order is about. If you have a point of order you should get up and raise it tersely.Phil Twyford: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson.The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): No I have finished. You have lost your opportunity.Denis O’Rourke: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson.The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Is this continuing the point of order that I have dealt with?Denis O’Rourke: I do not know what the previous point of order was.The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I will hear the member.Denis O’Rourke: I believe that the Minister used in pronouncing another member’s name the word or name “Tryford” instead of “Twyford”. He should correct that.The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Well if that is what the member said I will just ask him to be more careful in the future.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: It is often that Ministers do not attempt to respond. I am just making a very clear point. Labour members are claiming that this Government—all sorts of colourful rhetoric—Sue Moroney: Capital contributions.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: No that is not what Sue Moroney said.Sue Moroney: Yes it was—quite specifically it was.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: No she claimed that the Government was robbing Housing New Zealand of cash to pay money off to its rich mates and all this sort of rhetoric and she is wrong. The reality—the true numbers when you consider all of the transactions that occur between Housing New Zealand and the Government—is that thisGovernment is spending record amounts on social housing. Members opposite cannot claim differently.Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill): You know this National Government is essentially showing in this bill the Social Housing Reform (Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Amendment) Bill the continuity of policy from the Ruth Richardson Government of the 1990s with one exception: the Ruth Richardson Government in the 1990s was more honest. It simply slashed housing by 13000 in total housing stock creating the housing crisis that Labour Governments always inherit and it introduced market rent—market rent that people could not afford.This Government is trying to do it in a slightly more cunning way in this bill. What it is doing is that it is first of all undermining the stock of State housing and the capital investment and Nick Smith knows that. He knows that he has reduced not increased the number of State houses. Have you not reduced the number of State Houses by 700 Mr Smith? Those are the figures that I have. Mr Smith knows that he has reduced the capital input into State housing unless he is calling the Salvation Army a liar in its latest report. Is the Minister of Housing doing that? Or is the Minister ready to confirm that the Salvation Army which actually and genuinely is concerned about the supply of housing for our most vulnerable and lowest-income people says that whereas the previous Labour Government increased capital by a net $486 million he has produced a net withdrawal of funds of $142 million.You see it is the same old National Government. It does not give a damn about the most vulnerable and the neediest people in this community. Well I want to say this Mr Smith: I do care about the people in my electorate who cannot afford housing of their own. They are people who need the stability of housing for their kids’ sake and they are people who before they got a State house had their kids go to a dozen different schools in as many months. That is what undermines the future chances of our kids today. And what is Nick Smith doing in this bill? He is taking away the fundamental thing that Housing New Zealand was able to provide and that was stability and security of tenure.Thirty years ago when I was Minister of Housing Mr Smith I introduced something called income-related rents. That scheme said that we subsidised people so that their housing was affordable up to the point where they started to earn more money and then they lost their subsidy. The Minister has got 61000 tenants who are on income-related rent and 4800 who are on market rent. What that shows is that overwhelmingly the majority of State house tenants are the people who have very low incomes and who could not afford decent and secure housing in the private sector. Amongst those 4800 when I talk to the people in my Housing New Zealand areas are people whose incomes have gone up temporarily but it is late in their lives. They will never be able to afford their own home and their income will at a certain point again go down. What Mr Smith is going to do is throw those people out at a late point in their lives when they cannot afford a home of their own and take away their ability to have decent affordable and secure housing.The whole reason why we have State housing is so that kids can grow up in housing that is warm and healthy. Mr Smith was quite right to say: “Hey we will have all of our State houses properly insulated.” But Mr Smith also needs to acknowledge that the one sector of our community that has done almost nothing to make those houses warm and dry is the private rental sector. If you talk to any doctor in this country and if you talk to the general practitioners in my local community who service my low-income areas they will say that one of their biggest problems is that in the private sector there is no warm and dry affordable housing.What Mr Smith is doing in continuing what National Governments have always done in the past is ripping the guts out of Housing New Zealand but what he ispretending to do this time is that he will take 20 percent of the houses off Housing New Zealand and he will give them to the community housing sector. I am all in favour of the community housing sector but I know what Mr Smith’s next step is. When he has transferred the responsibility he will start withdrawing the resources that he gives to the community housing sector. That is the plan of the National Government. What worries me is that once again our most needy and our most vulnerable citizens in this country will be left in a worse position.It always amazes me that we have money to subsidise RioTinto—$30 million to a multinational that is going to pull out of New Zealand anyway—and we will give the film moguls at Warner Bros tens of millions of dollars and change the legislation for them and we will give Skycity the ability to increase its gaming machines and give $400 million in subsidies there but when it comes to meeting the basic needs of human beings to have decent housing particularly for our kids because it is the kids who benefit most this Government does not care. It does not matter how you dress it up Mr Smith. That is what you are doing. You are taking the housing stock away from Housing New Zealand where there was some guarantee that people would have ongoing access to that sort of housing and you are removing the security of tenure which is a basic need for our communities.We have got schools in my electorate like the May Road Primary School Hay Park Primary School or Wesley Primary School where I talk to the principals and they say: “Thank God in this area on the isthmus of Auckland we have State housing. Otherwise low-income people couldn’t afford to live on the isthmus of Auckland.” In my area I have low-income people for one reason and one reason alone: there is a decent stock of State housing which gives people on low incomes the ability to live in that area close to where they work. Dr Smith you are intending to take that away. You are intending to sell off those places and to congregate the people in the south and the west which is the only place where you will have people in State housing. Well may you walk away from that question because that is the truth of what this Minister is trying to do.We can be proud in this country that since the 1930s people of all incomes who have been in urgent need of housing have had a place to go. That is what State housing was about and that is what Housing New Zealand is about and once again we are seeing a Government that simply wants to undermine a fundamental social institution in this country. It is an institution that I call fundamental because as Norman Kirk said one of the critical things that people need in life is an affordable home. Housing New Zealand can guarantee that but we have seen the erosion of how the corporation can provide that housing.You know with housing problems go social problems. Once upon a time in my electorate the people who worked for Housing New Zealand would take responsibility to help out with some of the social problems of the tenants there. Dr Smith’s goal is to have Housing New Zealand being nothing other than a glorified private sector provider that takes no responsibility for those social problems. Once upon a time we had people who were equipped and able to go around the State houses and make sure that things were OK. The Government has stripped that back. Now what it is doing is stripping back the number of State houses and it is stripping back that fundamental principle that has existed for the best part of 80 years—when you go into a State house provided you pay your rent and provided you look after that home you have security of tenure. That house is not just bricks and mortar or timber and corrugated iron; it is your home. It is the place that is secure for you. It is the place where you can maintain tenure so that your kids do not have to change school every year. It is the place where you can afford a home that is of a decent quality. What this National Government is doing albeit in a slightly more cunning way than the Richardson National Government did is strippingthe most poor and the most vulnerable of the right to have that sort of housing assistance.The Labour Party will oppose this bill. It will oppose it with the support of every person in the housing sector who has looked at the needs of those who are vulnerable and who believes that the steps that this bill takes are steps in the wrong direction. We need more houses not fewer houses. There is a housing crisis—we are short of 80000 houses according to the New Zealand Institute—and that means that more people are competing for fewer houses which means higher rents. You have things like the introduction of loan-to-value ratios—Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour): I rise to oppose this bill the Social Housing Reform (Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Amendment) Bill with every fibre of my being. This is an absolute abrogation of responsibility by this Government for the poor and the needy in our communities. This bill is an effort by this Government to get rid of the housing affordability problem. How does it choose to do that? It chooses to do it by loading the problem on to an under-resourced third sector to provide more housing and in so doing the Government completely ignores the scale of the problem out there and the scale of the capacity of the Government to fix it. In fact only the Government has the capacity to improve housing affordability on the scale that is required.This bill tries to do three things. First of all it says that the Government will hand over the income-related rent subsidy to the third sector. Here comes the first stage of the dismembering of Housing New Zealand. So the Minister of Housing Dr Smith goes to his home electorate and he announces—in the particular pork-barrelling way he has—that the Nelson Tasman Housing Trust is just going to get another injection of money so it can build another six houses in Kawai Street. The Nelson Tasman Housing Trust is a wonderful example of a third sector housing organisation but another six houses in Kawai Street is not going to fix the problem.The Minister has no wish for a National Government to address the issue of housing affordability using all the levers at its disposal. No it is quite the contrary. What the Government is wanting to do and what Dr Smith is a past master at is to skirt around the problem and say: “These people over here will be resourced to the tune of $27 million.” or some paltry sum that is not going to allow them to scale up either their own capability or the number of houses they can build to address the problem of housing affordability. The $27 million over 4 years is not going to touch the sides of the housing affordability problem.If this were a Labour Government it would be looking to use every piece of apparatus available to the State as we did in our 9 years to make affordable housing a reality. However this Government a National-led Government has sat on its hands for 5 years until finally the focus groups and the polling have shown it that housing affordability is a problem that is being experienced even by people who voted for it. So that then galvanises the Government into action. So what do we see? Here is the easiest solution. We can flick off some of the responsibility by giving money out but not much—just $27 million over 4 years. We can give out money to the third sector which can build four houses here and six houses there and maybe 10 in Auckland if you are really lucky.And then here comes the second part of this bill. It then seeks to move the needs assessment for housing from Housing New Zealand to the Ministry of Social Development. So the Ministry of Social Development will take the responsibility for determining who should get a State house. Here we have the whittling away of Housing New Zealand so the Government can say: “We’ve put all this into the great morass ofthe Ministry of Social Development and it is no longer our responsibility to run housing through a specialised agency.”But the third thing that the Government seeks to do in this bill is the most pernicious and it is this business about making all State house tenants have reviewable contracts. Dr Smith in his opening remarks said that there was a man in his electorate who worked on a fishing boat who was earning $100000 a year and lived in a State house. I can probably name that man. If I am right about the one I am thinking of he has three children. He has three children and he wants them all to go to the same school. He wants them to go to Hampden Street School and to all grow up in the same area and not be shifted around from pillar to post. He is making sure that there is a continuity and a security about their upbringing that a stable house provides. He will be paying a market rent. If he is earning that much money—and I have to tell you he will be earning that much money only if there is a good catch because part of their recompense part of their remuneration is based on how many fish they catch; what the size of the catch is—if it is a good day and he is earning one hundred thousand bucks I can be absolutely certain that that man is on a market rental. So there are 4000 people on market rentals.The reason social housing was provided in the first place was to provide families with stability to grow communities that were stable and to avoid ghettoizing people who were in need and who were able to integrate into a community by virtue of their stability and by virtue of the fact that this was their house. There always comes a time when people’s circumstances change. Perhaps the children have all grown up and left and it is time for the elderly couple to move into a smaller property. That is quite a different proposition from simply saying that every State house tenant will have a reviewable contract. Dr Smith says there will probably be only 1000 of them in the next year who are going to be affected. Well I say that the fear of that will go to all the other 61000 who are State house tenants. The fear of having a reviewable contract will undermine the stability of those families when clearly the vast majority of people in State rental housing are people who need it to be provided by the State because by his own admission there are only 4000 people on market rentals.This is a travesty. The Salvation Army submission on the bill to the Social Services Committee said of this issue of security of tenure: “The most obvious drawback with reviewable social housing tenancies is the poverty trap it creates. If by getting a job or by finding a new partner who may help you financially you end up losing your home there is a real incentive either to do very little to improve yourself or to cheat the system. While the Bill has paid extensive attention to the provisions around monitoring tenants and penalising cheats to some extent it creates these problems by the way in which it makes tenancies conditional.”I hope the Minister has read this submission because this is creating social disunity social instability family dislocation and insecurity and those are not things on which healthy communities are built. The whole purpose of State responsibility for the most vulnerable in the provision of housing is to create stable societies and to create a sense of security. That is something the Government should be responsible for. Why would it not want to promote a secure and stable society? Why would it not want that to be part of its brief? Why does it think that this is something that has to be handed over to the private sector because the private sector knows how to do it better?There is nothing wrong with Housing New Zealand’s ability—until recently and its downsizing and its closing up shops—to achieve just the social ends that it was intended to achieve in the first place if only this Government would support it to do that. If only the Government saw that it was its responsibility to provide 3000 houses in Hobsonville of mixed affordability including market ones. But no this Government said and this Prime Minister said: “No State houses in my backyard. No State houses.”And so what have we got there? There are 17 houses and there could have been 3000. This Government is abrogating its responsibility to people.CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green): I would like to take just a brief call on the issue arising out of this bill the Social Security Reform (Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Amendment) Bill because it is an important issue for all people in this country. We used to come from a proud tradition and that tradition was called full employment and it was called housing for all. We have lost that. We lost it so long ago that there is a whole generation of people who have no idea that it ever existed. That is not something to be proud of. Part 1 of this bill is not something to be proud of either. The Green Party has a policy called Home for Life which addresses Part 1 and there are three excellent ideas in it. There is the idea of shared equity and progressive ownership the idea of a warrant of fitness for rental properties and the idea of secure tenancies. However Part 1 attacks secure tenancies in particular and certainly does not promote the positive ideas that we have come up with around the fact that we have a massive crisis—actually an epidemic—in shortages of homes. The figures are bandied about but this morning I saw on Twitter The New Zealand Initiative saying we have a shortage of 95000 homes in this country.So now is not the time to introduce more punitive measures towards State housing tenants—those who still have homes. In fact it is the worst thing we could do. We should be promoting genuine third sector housing relationships with iwi and community groups and working on ideas like shared equity and progressive ownership for the many many families who are in crisis now. We all pay. If we look at this purely from an economic perspective—nothing is pure economics; pure economics is one factor in life—we see that it is false economy to displace people and create more transience in our communities. It is false economy for people to be reviewed in their homes made more insecure in their homes or to be homeless. Rather than just creating the idea that it is something that the private sector as the previous speaker said magically will provide why do we not get real? It is time to get real and it is time to listen to groups like the Salvation Army which has done an excellent job.So for example what is wrong with reviewable tenancies? Well I learnt something from the previous speaker about this bill which was that Work and Income or the Ministry of Social Development are going to make some decisions about who gets a State house. What scares me about this having worked with both Housing New Zealand and the Ministry of Social Development and what scares the Green Party is that we are moving more and more into a punitive model in welfare and it appears now that the Government has decided through this bill to move housing into a punitive model. The idea that reviewable tenancies somehow will make for a fair or logical use of housing will not stack up. To be honest the Ministry of Social Development is not capable of running this kind of model. It does not have the expertise it does not have the commitment and it is not being driven by the Government to regard this as a human right to housing. It is being driven by the idea that there is a fraud going on. It is similar to the welfare bashing: “There’s a fraud going on there are the wrong people doing the wrong things in the wrong place and they need to be monitored. They need to be audited. They need to be checked on. They need to bescapegoated. Then we will get somehow greater efficiency.”Well for children living in houses when they do not know where they are going to be the next week efficiency is not really the issue. Even 10 years ago when I was working in housing in TaiRāwhiti there was a grandmother with seven children living in a two-bedroom flat trying to get into a State house. There was a list but it was a struggle then. How much worse would it be if a person got there—similar people to this woman—and then found they were going to be reviewed and then found that they were not secureafter the long battle to get out of the low priority C classification up to the A classification even though you are looking after eight children whose parents are in prison and you are a grandmother? The person finally gets there only to find now that it is back to Work and Income. It is a sad thing to say about the welfare system that it is now punitive and sanctioning but it is even more of a sad thing to see a punitive model being applied to the Housing New Zealand situation. It is actually going to create even more harm.Someone else referred to this as being like musical chairs. I believe Sue Moroney said it is like a game of musical chairs with a shortage of chairs. I actually think this is more like a bad Monopoly game where the State houses are no longer on the board. There is Park Lane for some people but some other people do not even get to the board. On that board in the glorious capitalist paradise that we supposedly live in the very least we could do is have some State houses. The very least we could do is own the fact that the State has a strong role in building third sector housing with partners such as iwi and community groups but not through reducing people’s access to secure tenancy. That is what is so offensive about Part 1 of this bill.CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): Norman Kirk once famously said that New Zealanders do not ask for much. They ask for someone to love somewhere to live somewhere to work and something to hope for. Well this Government is stripping away these things one by one person by person community by community and town by town. It has been described as heartless and it has been described as a shambles and it is. It has been described as incompetence and it is. But the unfortunate and tragic thing about this bill the Social Security Reform (Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Amendment) Bill is that it is deliberate. It is a deliberate shambles and it is deliberate incompetence. It is deliberate cold calculated and ugly and it is an attempt to turn social housing into a contestable market taking the Government out of being a provider or making it just one of many providers—devolving it.It is taking away that core function of the State that ensures a stable house for life. Numerous colleagues have talked about the importance of this which goes back to the 1930s—that one of the essences of what it means to be a New Zealander is to have these sorts of values to have a Government and to have a State that sees these things as being valued sees a house for life sees stable housing for people on low incomes and sees itself as having an extremely important role in ensuring that these things exist. Unfortunately this Government does not and we are seeing it time and time again as these things are being stripped away and taken away.A number of us have talked about the effects of these measures already in parts of our own communities our own parts of the country and in our own electorates. I want to talk about some of the issues that are happening in Dunedin where social housing and State housing have been an extremely important part of the community where there is a very high proportion of cold damp housing in our country and where the Government should be looking at and thinking about ways that it can improve this situation rather than creating more and more measures that are putting people in more precarious situations and bringing more insecurity into their lives.The guarantee of stable housing of a home for life is being taken away. I want to give a couple of examples because I think it is always important to try to bring these things to life. I want to talk about the mother with a young child who came into my electorate office to report that her home was damp and that she was constantly taking her child to the doctor with respiratory problems. She believed that there was a spring welling up from beneath the house. Well Housing New Zealand performed a cursory inspection but what it really believed and what it told her and my office was that it wondered whether the preschooler was pouring water on to the carpet and that wascreating the issue that was taking that child to hospital. Housing New Zealand did not want to look beneath the surface—literally look beneath the surface—and look for the causes to see what could seriously be done about it.I also want to talk about the woman who is living in a house in the heart of my electorate in South Dunedin in a private rental with two small children. Her house opens straight on to a busy road and her 3-year-old can open a locked front door. Housing New Zealand has refused her application because she was not falling behind with her rent in her private rental because she was borrowing from her parents to pay the private rental. She was borrowing—trying to do the right thing—to pay the rent and that for Housing New Zealand meant that she did not qualify. She did not qualify and she tried to get a cheaper private rental but her credit history was not good because of all the money she was borrowing so she was being turned down.She was in a spiral and she was a classic case of somebody who needed that help. She came to my office and because it was an individual case with a member of Parliament standing behind her who went to Housing New Zealand to explain fully this situation and to set out the amount of debt she arranged Housing New Zealand came to the party eventually and arranged for her to move to a fully fenced property near extended family which was a bonus. Yes that was a solution but it took the intervention of a member of Parliament to get that solution.Unfortunately what we are seeing time and time again is that only when somebody goes in to bat and advocates for these people can we get solutions. Even then the solutions are not always there. These people are not always articulate. They are not always able to set out their cases in a way that Housing New Zealand is going to respond to. What you find if you can get past the call centre is that there is often an immovable response. This is only going to get worse.I want to give just one more example of the woman who also came into my office who has a student loan and significant other debt. To save money she was staying on her friend’s couch. Housing New Zealand said that because she was single and working 20 hours a week she did not meet the criteria for application even though there were vacant Housing New Zealand homes in Dunedin. Again the intervention of an advocate can help her in her situation. How many other hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of people are there out there who cannot go who do not go and who have not been into their MPs’ offices and are therefore living in worse circumstances and getting into a further spiral of debt?We know that there are housing shortages. We know that there is an extreme unaffordability of housing in the main urban centres. We know that increasingly low-income New Zealanders are under greater housing stress with many being forced into substandard and overcrowded conditions. This is the time for intervention to empower and to increase the availability of housing not the time to be taking away the power and making the situation worse for people in these communities throughout New Zealand.In a submission on this bill the Dunedin Community Law Centre said that this shift is a one-size-fits-all model that does not take into account regional variations and local needs for social housing and that it takes us away from the core State housing philosophy of stable housing for life. We know that this bill is not good. We know that it must be opposed. We know that we are moving away from that core fundamental New Zealand value of what is important and what helps make our community the way it is where we believe that social housing is a core function of the State.We cannot support this bill. We have to have action on our housing crisis on housing shortages and on unaffordability. Instead what we are getting is an approach that is punitive and cold-hearted and the cold hand of the State is only going to make life worse for so many New Zealanders.JACINDA ARDERN (Labour): It is my pleasure to resume the call that was so rudely interrupted by the Minister of Housing some time ago. I was debating Part 1 of the Social Housing Reform (Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Amendment) Bill. I was up to clause 12. We were discussing the ability of Housing New Zealand to review eligibility for a Housing New Zealand home. I did ask a number of questions of the Minister which remain unanswered around the kind of data sharing that would be going on between Government departments as part of these provisions. I would really welcome the Minister in the chair the Minister for Building and Construction taking up the mantle and responding to those questions which still lie on the table.In particular I want to go back to this issue of housing insecurity because of course the Minister has said that his rationale for all of these parts—predominantly for Part 1 which allows an ongoing reviewable tenancy essentially—is his claim that there are of course these long waiting lists and extreme demand on our social housing and our State houses. That is not in question on this side but our response is simply that we must build more housing. The Minister’s response however is to actually apply an additional layer of housing insecurity which is already a significant issue. If you look at in particular our poorer areas of Auckland for instance there is an incredible turnover of students in our low decile schools as a consequence of insecure tenancy. If we are now doing that to our State housing that creates a whole additional layer of social issues as a consequence. That was a point I wanted to specifically raise.There are other forms of housing insecurity that have been perpetuated by this Minister at present. I am based in central Auckland. I am a list MP there. Recently a number of residents in Spring Street flats in central Auckland where there is a really limited amount of social and State housing available have been given letters to tell them that Housing New Zealand is currently assessing those properties. There is a chance that they may be moved on but there is no real final view as to what is going to happen. I wrote to the Minister asking for assurances around that process and his first response back was to slate me as not being the local elected member and therefore questioning my right to ask such questions. I thought that was disappointing. Secondly he did not really give any assurances. I point to that example because those tenants are now in a state of complete insecurity and actually that is what we are about to do to all State house tenants through these reforms—that is put them on constant notice that at any time they may go through a review.That review process is set out in Part 1. In new sections 57AB 57AC and 57AD inserted by clause 12 it starts talking about for instance how Housing New Zealand may investigate circumstances relevant to continued eligibility. As I have said—and there are quite a number of provisions in that regard—it includes the power of Housing New Zealand set out in new section 58 to “ask any person whose circumstances it may investigate any relevant questions it thinks fit; and (b) may ask any person whose circumstances it may investigate to verify by statutory declaration”—basically anything that is applicable as a determinant to their circumstances and their eligibility.I ask the Minister in the chair whether he could explain to the Committee whether or not there will be any guidelines set out around Housing New Zealand and the way it enforces this particular section. The reason I ask that question is that I have seen how Work and Income operates in this regard and it is the organisation that will be carrying out assessments in the future. The kinds of questions it asks clients go well beyond the scope of what it should be questioning clients over. Of course—of course—everyone in this Committee would agree that it is important that we make sure that people comply with the rules that are set out for those who are in need versus those who are trying to defraud the system but we have always come from the approach that in doing so that can be balanced by also having a system that is weighted in the notion of dignity. Andmy concern is that more and more entities like Work and Income under the leadership of Paula Bennett have moved away from that as a starting point.I would like to ask the Minister whether he can set out whether or not there will be guidelines—JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): I moveThat the question be now put.MOANA MACKEY (Labour): I want to speak to the Supplementary Order Papers on Part 1 of this bill the Social Housing Reform (Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Amendment) Bill. Of course the first Supplementary Order Paper is Supplementary Order Paper 390 in the name of Nick Smith. You will see that this here is the bill we are debating and this here is the Supplementary Order Paper to the bill we are debating and the Supplementary Order Paper is actually larger than the bill. The Minister of Housing is a little bit of a control freak. He had to rewrite the entire bill. I think it is quite extraordinary that the day before we debate the bill we get landed with this Supplementary Order Paper that is actually bigger than the actual bill. That is why we are so interested in having this debate. It is because we have not had a lot of time to actually scrutinise adequately this very very large Supplementary Order Paper to the legislation.I want to speak in support of Supplementary Order Paper 398 which is a Supplementary Order Paper in the name of my colleague Phil Twyford. What that Supplementary Order Paper would do is it would repeal new section 118—that is in Part 2—but it would also remove the related sections in Part 1. This would get rid of this concept of reviewable tenancies. It is extremely important that we do that because reviewable tenancies are simply a way of keeping people away from State housing making it as difficult as possible for them if they have been fortunate enough to actually access State housing to remain there and providing enormous uncertainty for the period of time that they are in that State house.What these sections in Part 1 of the bill will do is provide enormous disincentives for people to improve their status. If you do not know where that imaginary line is where if you suddenly step over it in terms of income you find yourself being evicted from a State house then you are not going to take on extra hours at work. You are not going to do anything to improve your situation. You will stay where you are and think: “As long as I am earning only the amount of money I am earning right now and no more I will not be kicked out of my home I will not become homeless I will not have to move to a far more expensive property.” They actually might not even be able to find another property to live in and so end up living in circumstances that none of us in this House would deem appropriate. The Supplementary Order Paper in the name of my colleague Phil Twyford very much addresses this by doing the one thing that will actually stop that from happening and that is getting rid of the sections in Part 1 that are related to reviewable tenancies.Why this is so important is that not only are we seeing people being evicted from State houses—5000 people who were cut off the waiting list from categories C and D moved under this reviewable tenancy policy— but we are now looking at another 3000 people potentially being evicted from State housing under the changes in Part 1. It is also important because of the needs assessment process which my colleague Jacinda Ardern referred to which will in Part 1 of this bill be transferred to Work and Income. What we are finding with the needs assessment process is that tenants are not getting to have a needs assessment even when they ask for one. I would like to know from the Minister in the chair the Minister for Building and Construction what provisions there are in Part 1 that would ensure that every tenant who approaches Work and Income—it was formerly Housing New Zealand—to have a needs assessment done to assess their eligibility for a State house actually gets an assessment.From experience what we know happens is that someone goes to Housing New Zealand says they want to check whether they are eligible for a house and Housing New Zealand puts them through this ridiculous process called “Options and Advice”. That process really should have been renamed “Options and Bad Advice” because they were briefly screened and on the basis of that brief screening they were told: “I’m sorry you are not eligible.” But they had not gone through the needs assessment process that Part 1 of the bill promises but does not show how it is going to ensure it actually occurs.People were then walking away coming into our offices and saying they had had a needs assessment. So you would say to them: “Well what category did you end up being assessed as A B C or D?”. They would say for example: “I was a 2”. You would say to them: “There’s no such thing as category 2.” and they would say: “No they told me I was a 2.” So you would ring Housing New Zealand ask whether this person had a needs assessment and the department would say: “Yes they did. We went through and determined their eligibility.” You would say to the person: “Did they ask to see your bank account number? Did they ask to see proof of identity?”. “No”—well then that was not a needs assessment.The ridiculousness of the situation—and it was the former Minister of Housing Phil Heatley who put this in place—was having to spend hours on the phone just getting Housing New Zealand to admit to the fact that it actually had not done a needs assessment and could not tell you whether that person was going to be category A or category B. That function is now shifting to Work and Income and what we need in this legislation is a provision that says that anyone who wants a needs assessment to assess their eligibility for a Housing New Zealand property should be able to have one. We do not have this in legislation. We know that we are simply going to see that practice again—JAMI-LEE ROSS (Junior Whip—National): I moveThat the question be now put.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the question be now put.Ayes64New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes56New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Motion agreed to.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 390 in the name of the Hon Dr Nick Smith to Part 1 and the following amendment in his name to clause 15 be agreed to:insert after new section 64(1):(1A) If a power has been delegated to the Corporation under subsection (1) the Corporation may with the consent of HNZsubdelegate that power to an employee of the Corporation or of HNZ.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendments be agreed to.Ayes64New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes56New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Amendments agreed to.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 398 in the name of Phil Twyford to Part 1 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendments be agreed to.Ayes56New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Noes64New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Amendments not agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat Part 1 as amended be agreed to.Ayes64New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes56New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Part 1 as amended agreed to.Part 2 Amendments to principal Act with effect from day appointed by Order in CouncilPHIL TWYFORD (Labour—TeAtatū): We spent some part of the debate on Part 1 of the Social Housing Reform (Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Amendment) Bill talking about the issue of reviewable tenancies and that is because Part 1 confers on Housing New Zealand the power to implement the so-called reviewable tenancies straight away after the Royal assent. But the substance of provisions on reviewable tenancies is actually included in Part 2 of the bill.I want to speak to my Supplementary Order Paper 396 which reflects I think some of the wisest and most considered advice that we had from submitters at the Social Services Committee. What this would do is that it would exclude from the provisions on reviewable tenancies the following groups: tenants with a disability tenants aged 65 or over and tenants with school-age children. This reflects the advice from people like the academics from Otago University from its Housing and Health Research Programme and a number of others who made the point that extending insecurity of tenure to families with school-age children would have a very harmful effect on the well-being of those families and particularly the educational achievement of children. So many of my colleagues have made the point so persuasively particularly the Hon Phil Goff who made the point that having stability and continuity is perhaps the single most important benefit of the State housing programme in that it gives to our most vulnerable citizens not only a roof over their heads but also a place that they can call home a place for families to raise their children.We know that the vast majority of poor people in this country actually do not live in State houses; only 4 percent of the population are housed by Housing New Zealand. Most of the very poor people in New Zealand today basically eke out an existence in the private rental market which is largely unregulated. Most of the houses at the bottom end of the private rental market are crap. They are of poor quality they are uninsulated they are cold and they are damp. On top of that tenants in the private rental market are basically at the whim of the landlord. Within 90 days for no particular reason they can be turfed out of their homes.That is the great fallacy underlying this policy of reviewable tenancies: it is based on the notion that once people earn somewhere over the 25 percent threshold then they should be turfed out of a Housing New Zealand house. Well where are they going to go? We are in the middle of one of the worst housing crises in living memory. There is a terrible shortage of affordable housing in most of our main centres and people simply will not have anywhere to go. So the effect of this policy of reviewable tenancies is simply to more ruthlessly push people through a revolving door in State housing. As my colleagues have said instead of doing the obvious thing which is to build more houses—because 4 percent is patently inadequate in a society and an economy such as ours—what this bill does is it just simply and ruthlessly pushes people more quickly through the revolving door. It is wrong it is unjust and it is a betrayal of the things that generations fought for and stood for.People built this country on the notion that the people at the bottom of the heap deserve a fair go and the institutions that were built in this country through the middle years of the 20th century were designed to give every child in this country a start in life a decent opportunity to get ahead. State housing was one of those institutions and this Government and successive National-led Governments over the last few decades have unpicked that and undermined the very foundations of State housing in this country. This bill and the imposition of insecurity of tenure taking away that stability that families so desperately need just shows—I do not know—a contempt for people who are State house tenants. It shows a wilful disregard of the evidence that the most credible submitters came to the select committee and spoke about.We do not want to see reviewable tenancies included in this bill but if they are included then I ask the Committee to give serious consideration to my Supplementary Order Paper 396 which would exempt the most vulnerable categories. In 2011 Phil Heatley when he was the Minister of Housing announced that new State house tenants would be subject to these reviewable tenancies but he publicly promised that existing State house tenants would not be included in this and he promised that the elderly and the disabled would not be included. Well this bill explicitly wipes away that political promise. It explicitly gives the power to the Minister of Housing to apply reviewable tenancies to all State house tenants including families with school-age children the disabled and the elderly.Because there are not enough State houses and because this Government has not done nearly enough to address the fundamentals of the housing crisis this horrible bill will give the power to Nick Smith to turf 80-year-olds out on to the street because there simply are not enough houses and that is a disgrace. It is a repudiation of decades and decades of successive Governments’ policies which they have defended that Housing New Zealand should at least offer a secure decent roof over the heads of this country’s most vulnerable people. It is absolute arrogance for the Minister to reject the advice of his great mentor the Productivity Commission which advised against this policy. The Housing Shareholders’ Advisory Group as my colleagues have pointed out explicitly advised against reviewable tenancies and yet here they are right at the heart of this bill. Otago University academics announced world-acclaimed public health research thatclearly demonstrated the benefits of having secure and stable State housing in terms of the reduced hospitalisation of children and yet this bill and this Minister rejects that. Instead of doing the obvious thing and building more State houses what this bill does is it just pushes people through the revolving door ever faster.I want to comment also on the policy that this bill reflects to shift the income-related rent subsidy to social housing providers. I suppose this is the other key feature of this bill. The Minister has said that it is his vision that Housing New Zealand should become just another tenancy provider competing in a contestable market with the community housing sector for both tenants and subsidies. It is certainly a view that Labour shares. We want to see a larger more capable empowered community housing sector with groups like the Salvation Army the Housing Foundation and Habitat for Humanity. They are groups that do an enormous amount of good and they want to do more. They want to provide their services to a larger group of New Zealanders and we support that but we do not support it by simply having Housing New Zealand being carved up with some of its most important powers devolved off to the Ministry of Social Development or elsewhere and having 20 percent of the Housing New Zealand stock as the Minister of Housing has said being dished out to other organisations in some kind of quasi-contestable market.If there is one lesson to be learnt from the last couple of decades and the process of devolution of social services social development and health services to the community sector it is that unless adequate funding follows those services and those responsibilities then the people who will suffer at the end are the recipients of those services. You need only think of the care of the elderly the care of the disabled and the mental health services where unless adequate funding follows those services the most vulnerable people suffer. I predict that the National Government’s policy of devolving housing to the community housing sector will be followed by a lack of funding in future years. That is the threat not only—Hon ANNETTE KING (Labour—Rongotai): I would like to continue just for a moment where my colleague Phil Twyford left off and say to the community housing sector which would very much like some of the State houses that the Government is talking of handing over to beware—to be very wary of this Government and its past record when it comes to handing over facilities to the NGO sector to trusts and others. We have seen this Government’s record in the past and I need only look at health to see where many of our small hospitals were offered to community groups. A very good example would have to be the small hospital at Te Puia which was handed over to Ngati Porou with great fanfare. What was never handed over—and now you see the results of it—was any funding for the ongoing capital works of that hospital. It is now in a bad state of repair because a small NGO or a trust does not have the ability to undertake the maintenance and the upkeep of such a facility.So I say to the community housing sector look very carefully at the fish-hooks in this Government’s proposal. They may well get some houses from Housing New Zealand but there will not be the money to go with it to maintain them. They will be asked to maintain and find the money to maintain these houses into the foreseeable future and it will not be long before cap in hand these organisations will come to a Government in the future and say: “We cannot maintain them. We need help.” So that is my warning carrying on from MrTwyford’s very good presentation.But I want to turn to my Supplementary Order Paper 397. I have a Supplementary Order Paper to amend clause 17 which contains the definition of “community housing provider”. I want included in there local councils because this bill makes it clear that community housing providers are made up of NGOs and others but it does not clearly say that councils can be community housing providers and can therefore be eligible forincome-related rent. So what my Supplementary Order Paper does is make it clear that a community housing provider can also be a council.The reason why I have put this forward is that local government has been a key component in social housing in New Zealand for many years. Christchurch City Council and Wellington City Council together represent the largest social housing providers in New Zealand. Those two councils are significantly bigger than any other community-based provider and they have dominated social housing for more than 50 years. So despite their role in social housing it does not appear that they will be eligible for income-related rents.I just want to put the case particularly from Wellington City Council and its social housing. If you look at Housing New Zealand and Wellington City Council you would see that together they hold 95 percent of all social housing here in Wellington. There is a similar tenant profile both for Housing New Zealand and for the city council. The city council here has 2240 units; Housing New Zealand has 1900. They have about 110 units for every unit from other community housing providers. The city council has got a very good high-level outcome for community housing here in Wellington. It wants to ensure that it has quality social housing. It wants to ensure that the residents’ health and well-being are well looked after. It is very keen to have sustainability in social housing and it wants to provide social housing into the future.The council also wants a strong partnership with central government. That was achieved under the previous Labour Government where here in Wellington it put in over $200 million alongside the Wellington City Council to upgrade council social housing here in Wellington. It has been the privilege of Ministers of Housing under this National Government to be able to come along and open these refurbished flats for the council’s social housing. In fact this Saturday we have got the opening of yet another block of flats refurbished by the Wellington City Council providing social housing to the most vulnerable in our society. Many of them are elderly. Many of them are people who suffer from mental illness. Many of them are people who have come from faraway lands as refugees and we have given them a good start to their lives here in New Zealand.So I believe that the councils particularly Christchurch City Council and Wellington City Council are putting up an incredibly strong case. I am sure that the Minister in the chair the Minister for Building and Construction would agree with me. They have a strong case for them to be included as part of the definition of “community housing providers” in New Zealand. Why would they not be? Why would they not be when they are the major providers of social housing?If the Government is serious about having income-related rents provided in social housing by other community providers why would it not include Christchurch City Council housing? I am sure my colleague from Christchurch Denis O’Rourke understands this. He was on the council and he understands the importance of that social housing. Why would the Government not include councils as part of its income-related rents policy? It would make a huge difference to those councils. As it says in Wellington City Council’s own documents it is committed to sustainable community housing—not just for now not just for a few years but for the long term it is committed to sustainable development.Councils want to take responsibility for the most vulnerable who need good dry warm and safe housing in New Zealand. So I am strongly arguing that the Government consider my Supplementary Order Paper 397. What it does is make it clear that local government can be—can be—a community housing provider under the bill. Not all of them might want to be so we are not forcing them to do something they do not want to do. But based on the submission—a very very good submission—provided to theSocial Services Committee by the Wellington City Council I know of at least one council that wants to be a community housing provider.So I would be interested in the Minister in the chair or the Minister of Housing Nick Smith when he returns to the chair telling this Committee why they would not include local government in the definition of “community housing provider”. I cannot think of any reason. I just hope that actually the fact that they are not included is an oversight—it is an oversight—that they forgot about it and they did not actually make the change that they would have liked to make.I am going to give them the benefit of the doubt—that they really wanted to do this and it was just a mistake that it was not included. I hope I am right because I know that if I am not right there will be many many disappointed local governments around New Zealand that would be wonderful partners with central government. Certainly I can say that under a Labour Government they will be strong partners with us. As we have shown many times in the past we value local government. We know what they can do in working with their communities to ensure that the most vulnerable are housed well with long-term tenancies. Councils provide long-term tenancies. They do not come along and say: “We are going to review your tenancy—goodbye you are out of here.” They say: “This is your home. This is the home that you have made and we will look after your home for you in conjunction with you as your landlord.”—and a very very good landlord indeed.Thank you. I do hope that the Government will give serious consideration to this Supplementary Order Paper 397. It is a serious attempt to ensure that we include the biggest community housing providers in New Zealand.DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): The Social Housing Reform (Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Amendment) Bill is an utterly misconceived and completely inadequate response to the intensifying New Zealand housing crisis This is a crisis that the Government sat around watching develop for 5 long years. It is a crisis in which rents in the main centres especially Auckland and Christchurch have rocketed. Yet the Government’s priorities are saving money and reducing the size of State housing services rather than ensuring that the needs of people especially those at the lower end of the socio-economic spectrum are adequately met.New Zealand First is committed to the provision of a genuine social housing service by the Government as a fundamental responsibility. This service would ensure that people who are unable to buy a home or for whom homeownership is not appropriate are able to get one to rent that they have fair rental related to their income and that they have stability in their lives. The social housing deficit in New Zealand is now huge. More and more Kiwis are unable to afford a home. Many will never be able to buy one. Their need is for more options for long-term rental housing which in this country only the State—and perhaps local government—can reliably provide for low-income people on the scale needed.The Government’s social housing policy reduces the scope of operation of Housing New Zealand. It will transfer large sums of money to community housing organisations through subsidies. But there are many unanswered questions—questions I have asked in this Parliament—about some of these providers. What about their competency in managing not just the housing but the people who need it? Can they be relied upon in the long term? Who will they really be in the long term? They will likely become a nightmare to monitor and require significant resources to do so.The bill provides for annual reports but there is very little detail about what those would contain. The bill also provides for intervention powers in the case of a range of possible specified failures but they would it is highly likely also be difficult to administer. The bill also provides for the State agency to give instructions and toappoint an administrator so why transfer the housing responsibility to such organisations in the first place? None of this gives any real confidence that so much public money should be used in this way.The State is the best provider where taxpayers’ money is concerned. These community organisations will own the housing funded or gifted by the Government. How do we know the money will be well spent or the housing assets applied for the objectives of social housing? There will be no State asset in return—money out nothing back. What happens really if a recipient organisation fails? Where do the assets go then? Will the agency be able to cope with such a failure? Will the Government be able to cope for that matter? How transparent and accountable are the processes for allocating funds to community providers? What safeguards and what risk management have been put in place? I have not seen any evidence of that at all. Will they have enough competence in the housing market when so many private providers have failed? These are just a few of the questions left unanswered by this bill.Local government should be considered. I agree with Annette King on this. Local government is in many cases well able to do this. Local government has policies that are well matched to local needs. They should be included. But this Government hates local government. That is at the root of why it will not consider that. It is as simple as that in my view. Although there are some good community providers for social housing such as the Salvation Army and Habitat for Humanity there will be many to which the social housing need should not be sent. The risks of that are far too high. There is a risk to the Government’s financial outcomes and there is a risk to the community’s social outcomes. There are risks for New Zealand’s most vulnerable people. There are risks to low-income families from these policies. The risks overall versus the benefits are far far too high. This bill is fundamentally flawed.JACINDA ARDERN (Labour): It is my pleasure to speak to the provisions of the Social Housing Reform (Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Amendment) Bill starting with new Part 9 that specifically set out how social housing providers are really being brought into the State housing landscape. I want to start with the beginning of new Part 9 which sets out the provisions around the social housing agency. It is interesting—when you read this section of the bill it is very ambiguous. It kind of sets out the criteria of how the social housing agency will conduct its duties what it will be governed by and how it is able to be changed out through essentially Order in Council. What we are actually talking about though is the way that the Ministry of Social Development will operate as the social housing agency. That is what this section is specifically referring to so it is interesting to me that these provisions are shaped in the way they are. I would be interested to hear from the Minister of Housing whether or not the Government has purposefully done that in order to allow it some flexibility in future for another agency to take back these powers of essentially overseeing all of the additional frequent assessments that will now sit around this area.I take for example new section 101 “Social housing agency”. It says: “The Governor-General may from time to time by Order in Council made on the recommendation of the joint Ministers appoint a department departmental agency or a Crown entity or any combination of 1 or more departments departmental agencies or Crown entities to perform some or all of the functions and exercise some or all of the powers of the agency under this Act.” There really is a lot of wriggle room built in there. I just wondered whether the Minister could give some explanation as to why he felt that that was important because the provisions for the functions of that agency are quite broad but they are significant. The most powerful part of the bill is the handing over of the charge as it were to that agency so why are the provisions so broad? Whynot be specific? Why should we not come back to this House to debate the way that it should be governed in future if indeed the Minister decides to change that agency?Then we come to the bits in new section 105 that relate specifically to social housing providers. In New Zealand social housing providers have played an incredibly important role in our communities. There are two specific functions I want to speak to that I think the Government has guarded heavily: the ability to provide housing to groups that are not specifically catered for and tenants who often have particular difficulties being housed. We could place in those categories for instance prisoners on release; mental health patients often on release as well from State institutions; those who have experienced severe drug and alcohol issues and have gone through particular programmes; and even those transitioning from night shelter environments into housing. There is a range of clients that community housing providers have specifically catered for in the past. So that has been something very very special and important that they have done. The second thing that they have done is of course they have managed themselves. That has enabled them to often put wrap-around services around this client group. They also advocate on their behalf.It is absolutely beneficial to allow those agencies to claim income-related rents for their purposes of housing provision. But that does then place some duties on them as well. I guess I am trying to see whether or not that dilutes their ability to maintain those really important functions. For instance “the agency”—presumably the Ministry of Social Development—is “to notify social housing providers of eligibility and housing needs”. So the Ministry of Social Development has to notify the provider each time the agency makes an assessment around “the eligibility or continued eligibility of the tenant for social housing;”. Does that mean that if the Ministry of Social Development does a re-assessment or an income-related rent assessment and finds that a tenant is no longer eligible there is an expectation then that that community housing provider moves that individual on given that it is catering for individuals with quite specific needs?Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister of Housing): Part 2 of the Social Housing Reform (Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Amendment) Bill deals with the real heart of the Government’s social housing reforms. It does three important things. Firstly it opens up the income-related rent subsidy on an equal basis to those people who live in community social housing. So if you are Habitat for Humanity if you are Accessible Properties a subsidiary of IHC or if you are the Salvation Army and you provide social housing for high-needs clients you are going to be able to receive the same subsidy that the Government provides for Housing New Zealand.The second very important reform—and it is substantial—is that when people require housing assistance they will in future go to the Ministry of Social Development or Work and Income. That makes really good sense because right now actually our biggest social assistance for housing comes through the accommodation supplement. The Government spends nearly $2 billion a year on that. The Government also through Work and Income provides grants for people to be able to get a bond. It makes really good sense for our constituents to be able to go to one port of call for housing assistance. A person at the Ministry of Social Development may say: “Hey look we need to give you support to get a bond so you can get a house in the private sector. You may be eligible for an accommodation supplement or you may be eligible for income-related rent and a social house.”Constituents get really frustrated right now at getting pushed between pillar and post and ask: “Am I eligible for an accommodation supplement or am I allocated for an income-related rent?”. So reform of that makes really good sense and equally in this bill we require the regulation of the social housing sector. If you are going to get those high subsidies then it is fair for the Government to say: “We want to be sure that yourun a really good outfit that you’ve got good tenancy services that you’re providing good-quality houses and that you provide the sorts of services that will make for a good social housing provider.”The part that I really want to challenge the Opposition on is this. You can have all the weasel words you like about whether you support the community housing sector or not. I have got a simple question: do you support the reform in this bill that will let social housing providers have access to the income-related rent—yes or no? I have been listening to the debate for 20 minutes and I am none the wiser. I come away with a clear impression that the Opposition does not know.Jacinda Ardern: I just said that.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well the members need to be clear on it.The second point on which I am none the wiser is whether members opposite support the Ministry of Social Development having the role of assessing that comprehensive assessment. It is a big part of the reform. It is actually one of the most important changes. Again I am none the wiser. I do not get the idea that Labour has any idea what it stands for.Hon Annette King: Answer my question then.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well no I am simply saying that the substantive policy change in this bill makes those two substantive changes. Does Labour support them or not? I challenge Labour members and say that if they cannot answer those substantive questions on such an important social issue for New Zealand then they really are vacant. No wonder their popularity is so low when they cannot sort out such a fundamental element of their own housing policy.JACINDA ARDERN (Labour): I am very pleased that I am able to continue my contribution. I thought that the Minister of Housing might actually rise to respond to the legitimate questions that I raised earlier in my contribution. Instead he decided to simply insult the Labour Party and the legitimate questions that we have raised. If the Minister had been listening to my contribution he would have heard me say that of course Labour has never been opposed to the social housing sector being able to take advantage of income-related rents. We have never been opposed to that.David Bennett: Yes you have.JACINDA ARDERN: How could you be opposed to the idea of giving that sector an equal footing when it does the kind of role that it does? David Bennett perhaps you would like to rise and give your contribution on the Social Housing Reform (Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Amendment) Bill given that you have got something to say in the back corner there. We have never said we had any opposition to that Minister. But we have raised legitimate concerns over whether the obligations giving that sector an extra additional benefit—which we think they should have—are Draconian and too heavy-handed and will remove its ability to provide the kind of service that it has been able to provide. That is a point that has been raised time and time again by Phil Twyford—the fact that if for instance it takes on some State assets for management there is then the ability of the Government to come in and basically ride roughshod over its own board and its own governance. Of course we raise concerns with that. Those are legitimate concerns.This is why I am now raising concerns around for instance the fact that if the Ministry of Social Development has the ability to create an ongoing review of tenancy—the basic premise of our opposition to this bill is that fundamental principle—how is that also going to affect the social housing sector? If it is able to preside over income-related rents Minister does that mean for instance that the Ministry of Social Development can come in and use its all-encompassing powers to ask any question it wants proceed with any investigation it chooses into the eligibility of a tenant and thencall into question the social housing provider’s role in providing that housing? What if for instance that social housing provider provides a social worker who deals with that individual on an ongoing basis? Could the Ministry of Social Development question them about their knowledge of income of asset base and of changed circumstances? Could that then put them in a conflicted situation? These are all relevant questions. As we have seen in Part 1 the area of questioning that the Ministry of Social Development is allowed to engage of a tenant and the information it is able to draw in to review tenancy are quite broad and quite sweeping.I ask those questions very legitimately because we have seen a similar thing happen with Work and Income and the way it manages youth services. It is now the case for youth services that all of the administering of benefits has been contracted out to youth providers in the same way that we are now pushing out some of this to the community housing sector. Those youth providers who previously had a really strong relationship with the young people they were working with as our community housing providers do with their tenants are having to play policemen as well. They are having to look at whether or not someone should be eligible for an additional food grant for instance. It fundamentally changes their role.We need to make sure that community housing providers who in the past have advocated on behalf of their tenants in various forms are not now in a compromised position through some of these provisions. As I say of course we want those providers to have access to income-related rents on behalf of their tenants but we want them to maintain their special role in the community housing sector at the same time. That is why I want to ask the Minister of Housing a question. New section 105(4) in clause 19 says: “A social housing provider is entitled to rely on a notification given under this section.” That new section also states that the agency must update notifications regularly around a tenant’s eligibility for social housing. And it also sets out that the agency can then review and appeal etc. as part of those provisions. My question is: can a social housing provider directly appeal a decision that has been made by the agency or the Ministry of Social Development? That provider of course will be very close to the tenants and will know the circumstances of its tenants. Is it able to make use of the appeal provisions on behalf of its tenants if the Ministry of Social Development undertakes a review that deems a tenant to no longer in its mind be eligible for an income-related rent? I can anticipate those kinds of circumstances. In the past we have relied on community agencies to take those appeals. What role will those social agencies have in those kinds of disputes? It is a legitimate question for the Minister.Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour): I rise to speak to the second part of the Social Housing Reform (Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Amendment) Bill. The Minister of Housing asked whether the Labour Party supports the handing over of income-related rental subsidies to the third sector—to community sector housing providers. If it were as simple as that the choice would be easy. Of course they should access that money. Of course they should access on an equal basis the income-related rental subsidy because they are helping the Government in its purpose of finding adequate housing for those who need it.The trouble is that it is not as easy as that and the Minister is being quite simply disingenuous by suggesting that this is a yes/no choice. Our issue is also about the quantum of money and the expectation that the third sector the civil society housing sector will be required to take over the Government’s responsibility for the provision of housing for those most in need. At $27 million over 4 years Minister—$6.75 million a year—that is not going to do it. So sure give the third sector $27 million over 4 years to improve its capacity but do not abrogate the Government’s responsibility as the primary agent available to produce and build the greatest number of affordable houses.This is simply shifting the buck. This is simply privatising a responsibility of the Government and doing it inadequately.So yes we are perfectly happy for the third sector to have access to income-related rental subsidies but that is not all there is to it. We would prefer that the Government actually stepped up to its responsibilities instead of waiting 5 years and doing nothing about affordable housing until the noise around it became so great that it had to apply one of its noisiest members to it. The Government is now scrabbling for anything that might get this monkey off its back.I want to speak further about PhilTwyford’s amendment—Supplementary Order Paper 396. Supplementary Order Paper 396 relates to the provisions in clause 19. What PhilTwyford’s Supplementary Order Paper seeks to do is to amend clause 19 so that the ability of any agency to review the housing needs of a tenant—this is the implementation of the reviewable tenancies part of the policy—does not apply to tenants with a disability tenants aged 65 years or over or tenants with school-age children.I want to know from the Minister in the chair the Minister of Housing who is meant to be answering some of our questions why he is not supporting Supplementary Order Paper 396 or whether in fact he is supporting it. I bet my bottom dollar he is not supporting it because it has come from Labour but what could possibly be wrong with exempting tenants with a disability tenants aged 65 years and over or tenants with school-age children from reviewable tenancies?I have already spoken—earlier in the debate on Part 1—about the creation of secure communities—families that are secure; families that are not threatened by dislocation and the upheaval of moving into the private sector; families that do not have the threat of a reviewable tenancy held over them. This is especially important in places where there is inadequate private rental accommodation available and that is as true in Nelson as it is in Auckland. The quality of rental accommodation is dire.I want to refer to the submission to the Social Services Committee that was made by HeKāingaOranga the Housing and Health Research Programme based in the University of Otago. The submission of that research programme says that the bill makes several major changes to social housing which we know and it says that it does not support the introduction of reviewable tenancies for all State tenants which is what is going to happen with this bill—not the people who were excluded previously but as my colleague Phil Twyford said earlier all State tenants. It said that it does not support it because of the lack of evidence.Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.Hon MARYAN STREET: Before I was interrupted by the dinner hour I was talking about a submission to the Social Services Committee on this bill by HeKāingaOranga which is based in Otago University. It said that it did not support the introduction of reviewable tenancies for all State tenants because of a number of things and those things included a lack of evidence provided for its efficacy its cost the health effects on the lack of security of tenure the health effects of displacement the health effects of moving people from State to private rental housing and the effect on children’s education. These are not stupid people putting a submission together. These are people who are experienced in that whole matrix of health housing education and children’s achievement and stability. For the Government to ignore this outright is a reflection on its own lack of ability—either its own lack of ability to perceive the implications of the policy it is pursuing or its stubbornness in refusing to address the people for whom social housing ought to be provided.I raise that because the next bit that this submitter says was that it recommended that families with school-age children be excluded from reviewable tenancies along with the groups it thought were already excluded—older people people with disabilities and the chronically ill. Those people are excluded by policy only. When it comes to the black letter of this bill they are not excluded. I want the Minister to explain why they are not excluded. If it was good enough for it to be policy promulgated by the Hon Phil Heatley in 2011 it is surely good enough to turn up in the legislation.Having those exclusions from reviewable tenancies—that is older people people with disabilities the chronically ill and tenants with school-age children as my colleague Phil Twyford suggests in Supplementary Order Paper 396—would go some way to alleviating some of our concerns. But it does not seem that there is any intention for the Minister to do that or even to address why he is not doing that. Quite frankly Minister if I might quote the title of MarkPrebble’s bookWith Respect this is not good enough. This does not protect the people who need protecting—the vast majority of those in our State housing stock who need assistance at this time. So my colleague has put forward a Supplementary Order Paper that asks that tenants with a disability tenants aged 65 and over or tenants with school-age children be exempt. Why will that not happen?MOANA MACKEY (Labour): I too want to comment on Part 2 of this piece of legislation the Social Housing Reform (Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Amendment) Bill on the role of the community housing sector in the Government’s plans and also on the reviewable tenancy policy if I get time. When the Housing Shareholders’ Advisory Group report was released—and that was a group of people who came with a wealth of backgrounds and experience in terms of understanding what really needed to significantly change if we were to address the pressures in social and affordable housing in New Zealand—it came with one very very firm and stark message from that group which was: “Please do not cherry-pick. Please do not just take a few bits of this report that you think you can implement and ignore the rest of it. It is a whole package. It is an entire strategy. If you are going to take this issue seriously then it is not OK to just pick the bits that you like and ignore the bits that you do not like.” But unfortunately what we have seen from this Government since that report was released was very much cherry-picking of some of the elements of the report that they agreed with and ignoring the rest of it.Although I think it is a very positive step forward to extend the income-related rent subsidy to community housing providers providing social housing I will point out that it is only $27 million over 4 years. That is not going to cover even the current community housing providers that are providing social housing—those ones that exist there already. That is not even enough money to cover what has already been done let alone what this policy was supposedly attempting to do which was to build more of these third-sector social housing units. It is a kind of laudable policy aim but the reality is that there is not enough money to even pay for what we have already got let alone to build this sector up.The second thing I would say about it is that I think it puts the community housing sector in a really invidious position and it is actually really really very unfair. I come back to my cherry-picking comments. If you go and talk to any of the community housing sector organisations particularly those involved in social housing they will give you one very strong message: they are absolutely 100 percent committed to security of tenure. They are absolutely 100 percent committed to providing the kind of security that often we take for granted—when you own your own home and you know that you are going to have that tenancy for as long as you choose to have it barring any great disaster happening. A lot of people take that security for granted and the benefitsthat come from that security—the benefits for children growing up in those homes where their parents can put down roots in their community and they can know that their children are not going to be moved from school to school as they struggle to find accommodation. What we know from endless research in the education area is that transience—moving from school to school and never being able to settle down—is one of the worst things that you can put on a child and it will have one of the biggest negative impacts on their learning ability.The awful thing about this reviewable tenancy policy which the community housing sector is now going to have to apply if it wants to access those income-related rent subsidies and which runs up against everything it stands for is that for most people it is never going to apply. You will get insecurity for 100 percent of tenants who are under this policy for something that addresses a small number of tenants who in the past Housing New Zealand used to actually work with as human beings.You know remember when Housing New Zealand actually treated tenants like human beings and were allowed to develop relationships and did not have a Government that removed that personal relationship between tenants and tenancy managers? Back then the tenancy managers would work with the families. When circumstances changed they would work to move them on. As I said to the Minister of Housing before the two biggest issues that were stopping people from moving on were not that they were so selfish that they refused to move because they did not want a more needy family to have the State house. It was firstly that they had nowhere to move to and secondly that they could not afford the cost of moving—the bond the rent in advance the letting fee and the actual cost of moving. Those were what were stopping tenants from moving on and nothing in Part 2 of this bill around reviewable tenancies does anything to fix either of those two things.So the problem will continue to go on. We will shuffle people out on to the streets not knowing where they are going not caring where they are going—seemingly—and the core problems will not be fixed by Part 2 of this piece of legislation.Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North): It is a pleasure to speak on Part 2 of this bill the Social Housing Reform (Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Amendment) Bill and to join what is a chorus of dissent on this side of the Chamber because this bill is a disgrace. People have made the argument from many different angles because it is to be made from many different angles.I want to add to a couple of the comments I was making on Part 1 because I understand that the main provisions in Part 2 from my reading of the bill anyway enact those same principle provisions that are in Part 1. The fact that the regulatory impact statement talks about the problems under four headings was something I began to canvass. The first problem is that “state housing is not well matched to need;”. These are the problems with the current social housing in New Zealand according to officials. The second is that “there is a lack of alternatives to state housing that offer security of tenure and affordability;”. The third is that “government financial assistance for housing is inequitable;” and the fourth is around the cost of the housing and the fiscal pressures.Mr Smith got up to address some of those points—although I note he focused on the Salvation Army report in his response—but those four problems are what seem to be driving the current difficulties with the social housing market in New Zealand. As I pointed out in Part 1 the first three of those problems are not addressed at all by this bill—certainly not in any fashion that could be regarded as forward thinking or visionary for the people for whom State housing is designed to support.The regulatory impact statement then goes on to point out the number of properties that are not currently being used—14 percent of the housing portfolio is either vacant underutilised or overcrowded—and then it goes on to say that part of the reason for thisis that there is “uncertainty over the funding necessary to maintain social housing.” I think that is one of the key findings in this regulatory impact statement—the fact that there is not certainty of funding from this Government and that there is no consistent policy that seems to be applied. It is a very ad hoc approach to social housing the Government has taken. We can see that that means that the solutions are ad hoc and when one is not certain where the money is coming from one makes do in the short term.That is exactly what these policies represent. They are the kinds of policies that may put band-aids here and there may make some of these houses habitable but certainly in the medium term they will be exposed for exactly what they are. Earlier colleagues talked about musical chairs and the worst kind of musical chairs being where you take away one chair each time the music stops until there are none left. This is exactly what this housing policy seems to represent—a kind of un-fun game of musical chairs where New Zealand’s most vulnerable citizens are the ones without a place to put their head.These are the kinds of policies that a Government that is out of touch will run—a Government that is unaware or disinterested in the widening inequalities that we are finding in New Zealand society. Under this Government inequalities are the worst that they have been in documented history in this country since records of inequality have been kept and that is a shameful thing. This Government is arrogantly persisting with policies that are exacerbating that.On this side of the Chamber we have a view that all people ought to be supported to make their best contribution. The Labour Government of the future wants to build a future for all. It wants an economy that works for all New Zealanders and makes sure that even those most disadvantaged in terms of their opportunities at birth are supported to make the most of their talents so that they can live in dignity like everybody else can make their best contribution can sleep well at night can have the expectation that they will not have transience forced upon them and can have opportunities in schooling to make the most of their natural talents. That will lead to a nation that we can all be proud of. That is what New Zealanders want.Certainly when I am in Dunedin I am hearing more and more stories of people who would like to be in secure accommodation but have been forced into private accommodation that is inadequate. I personally have been to visit a flat that I once lived in as a student that is now occupied by a large family with grandchildren in it who are living in appalling conditions. The conditions of that flat were not flash when I was living there as a student approximately 20 years ago and they have deteriorated since then. It has got to a state where no children ought to live there where children ought not to be brought up there because the conditions of that house are cold and damp.Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: You left it in that state.Dr DAVID CLARK: That coldness and dampness—I mean the Minister of Defence Minister Coleman over there may think it is a joke. He laughs about this but these are children who are running around with runny noses in the middle of winter and living in a cold damp home who may develop preventable respiratory illnesses.These are problems that we know how to fix but they seem to be not a priority for this Government. It seems much more interested in doing those kinds of deals—the likes of Skycity Chorus coming up probably and some corporate welfare out to RioTinto—that are targeted at supporting a few. Are they transparent? No they are not. Instead they are deals that are supporting a few when we see so many New Zealanders suffering.MELISSA LEE (National): I moveThat the question be now put.The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): No I think it is far too early for that. I am just looking to see who has not had a call and I see that the honourable member Sue Moroney has not had a call and she has been seeking one.SUE MORONEY (Labour): I do want to take the opportunity to speak to Part 2 and in particular to two excellent Supplementary Order Papers that have been put forward in the names of Phil Twyford and Annette King. I will start with Supplementary Order Paper 396 which has been put forward in the name of Phil Twyford because this is an issue that is very close to my heart. It is the issue of ensuring in this Social Housing Reform (Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Amendment) Bill that reviewable tenancies cannot be covered and applied to those over 65 the disabled and those with school-age children.I will start by talking about the school-age children because in my experience in visiting schools one of the first things that teachers will tell you is the difficulty they have in actually educating children who are always on the move those children who are from transient backgrounds and transient families. It does not matter how many times the teachers are chastised about national standards by that Government—it does not matter how many times the nanny State opposite tries to browbeat teachers about national standards—for children who are constantly on the move there is no way that any teacher is going to be able to get them to achieve a national standard. When children move from school to school their ability to actually be in a secure educational environment is severely compromised. And here is this Government adding to that by compromising the security of their housing by compromising the security of that most fundamental social need: having a decent roof over their heads.That is what I cannot understand with this Government because it constantly tries to sound like it is concerned about vulnerable children. Here is its chance. Here is its chance to prove it. Prove with your vote Dr Smith that the most vulnerable of our children those who are often in State housing tenancy situations are actually the children who need security. They are the children who need your help Minister. They do not need a further impediment put in their way to having a good secure lifestyle and therefore having the ability to know that they are going to be able to continue to go to their local neighbourhood school because the home they live in is the one that is going to continue to be the home they live in. That is what I find so objectionable about Part 2. There is no attempt by the Government to give those children that security.I know that the Minister has tried to indicate that he will ensure that Housing New Zealand Corporation does not move on families with school-age children but let us put the money where the mouth is Minister and vote in favour of PhilTwyford’s excellent Supplementary Order Paper which would make sure that there was a legislative protection and security for these children. Anything else is just weasel words. Let us be clear about that. Anything less than voting for this Supplementary Order Paper is just paying lip-service to a commitment to vulnerable children. So here is where the Government can actually make its commitment clear.But I also challenge the Government to make clear its commitment to those over the age of 65 and to the large number of people who will live with disabilities on a day-to-day basis who also need some security of tenure. If you think about people with disabilities often these homes have been renovated by the State by the taxpayer to cater for the particular disability in mind. If there has been that commitment from the taxpayer to renovate that house in order to suit the person with the disability then surely the Minister could give a legislative commitment to those people that they will have some security of tenure in their own homes.I think that this part of the bill is the part that has the most damage in it. It is the part that also has the most opportunity in it and I want to speak briefly to that because that isthe subject of Annette King’s Supplementary Order Paper. It is the idea that social housing providers some of the non-governmental organisation operators in this field should participate and that they should be taking over some of the Government’s responsibility. Let us be clear. That is what it is. This bill actually says they should be taking over the responsibility that has formerly been that of the State. So we should call it what it is. Certainly on this side of the Chamber we know that these non-governmental organisations would be excellent social housing providers because they are already. We would want them to be providing social housing in addition—Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie): I moveThat the question be now put.The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I am looking—I am looking. I am just trying to be even—to see who has had some calls. Sue Moroney has had only one call so I am going to call her.SUE MORONEY (Labour): Thank you Mr Chair because I was in the midst of a really important part when the Government tried to shut this debate down because those members do not want to talk about Part 2 of the Social Housing Reform (Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Amendment) Bill which is around the idea that very very good and well-meaning non-governmental organisations are being asked to take over the responsibility of the State. On this side of the Chamber we believe in those organisations having the ability to add to the State’s responsibility but not to replace it. That is our concern with this part of the bill. We know that those organisations are very very good at what they do. But here is what the problem is. I talked about this a little bit in my Part 1 debate. Actually the main problem is that there is not enough housing—there is not enough housing stock. Until the Government comes face to face with that and admits what the actual problem is and not what the pretend problem is then it will not make headway in this area. It just will not make headway.So here is my concern and I am going to describe it in terms of a very similar situation that has rolled out in the past in the health area. We have seen it happen before. I am going to talk about rest homes in particular. Very very well-meaning organisations mostly religious and welfare organisations took over the running of rest home services that were at that time the purview of the State. The State primarily operated those services for our most vulnerable elderly. Then very well-meaning non-governmental organisations—as I said before mostly religious and welfare organisations—took over the running and took over the job of the State in that role.That worked out OK—actually pretty well—for 6 7 8 9 or 10 years but less than two decades later what we actually found was that now those rest homes have been almost all onsold to corporations in the private sector. It was not because those non-governmental organisations had decided that that is what they wanted to do from the outset—not at all. In fact it was quite the reverse to that. They really wanted to offer the very best service in aged care. But what they found was that they were not able to do that in the way that they felt comfortable and good about. It was not the sort of service that they could feel was what they went into it for. So it was privatised.That is what I see as being the slippery slope with housing. Well-intentioned very experienced non-governmental organisations I think under the sort of Government we have in place at the moment will find that they are completely under-resourced to do the job to their high standards and may then find that they end up offloading those properties on to the private sector. That would be an absolute travesty because what we would then find is that our most vulnerable citizens will be at the mercy of large corporations and private landlords and is not that a situation that we already suffer from in this country? It is not the pathway forward. It is not the way to resolve housing problems for our most vulnerable.Can I put it in the context of being one of the most fundamental social rights in this country which is that every New Zealand citizen should have the right to have adequate housing to have a good and adequate roof over their heads. We know that when that does not happen our whole country suffers. It is all very well for the Government to congratulate itself week in and week out as it tends to do on putting more and more resources into preventing rheumatic fever and the outcomes of children having got rheumatic fever. But would it not be so much better if instead of actually dealing with the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff this Government understood the importance of adequate and safe housing to actually preventing children from getting that dreadful Third World disease in the first place? Is not that the sort of country that we should be aiming for?I know that on this side of the Chamber it is. The vision that Labour has is that we want to ensure that every family has adequate housing so that we are not talking about—as the Government seems to pride itself on—dealing with the outcome of Third World - country diseases. How hopeless is that?MIKE SABIN (National—Northland): I moveThat the question be now put.The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): No. I am going to call a spokesman for the area and of course it is the honourable member Philip Twyford.PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—TeAtatū): It is only you and my mother who call me that.Jacinda Ardern: What? Philip Stoner Twyford?PHIL TWYFORD: Philip as opposed to Phil. I want to make some comments about the extension of the income-related rents subsidy to community housing organisations. We saw the Minister of Housing get up a little while ago and in a great sort of gotcha moment challenge Labour to say whether it supported these provisions and so on. Well it is true there is a lot of animosity on this issue. We are deeply opposed to the extension of insecurity of tenure to State housing tenants. There are other elements of this bill the Social Housing Reform (Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Amendment) Bill that we are utterly opposed to. It is no secret and it should be no mystery Minister that Labour wants to see a greater role for community housing organisations. I want to pay tribute to the Hon Maryan Street and the progress that she made as housing Minister in opening up that policy.I am quite happy to acknowledge and salute the policy progress that the Hon Nick Smith has made so far in this portfolio in terms of opening up space for community housing NGOs to play a greater role in the provision of State housing. We agree with that. There is no controversy. There is no mystery there. We are very aware that the community housing NGOs do some fantastic work and have the potential to do a lot more. In west Auckland the community that I representVisionWest Community Trust and Monte Cecilia Housing Trust both do fantastic work amongst other areas on the provision of emergency housing. That work is funded by the Government and it is vitally needed—in fact we need more of it. There are a number of community housing organisations that do really great work with high-needs tenants providing services that sit alongside the provision of housing.I want to see housing associations and non-profit entities that deliver affordable rental housing become part of the scene in New Zealand like they are in a number of other jurisdictions overseas. We support the extension of the income-related rent subsidy. We support the work of the Social Housing Unit. But the question that we have in this debate is whether in fact the rhetoric about growing the community housing sector is based on a genuine and deep commitment to the empowerment of that community sector. As Campbell Roberts from the Salvation Army has pointed out the Government in spite of all its rhetoric has committed only $27 million over 4 years tothe community housing sector. As Campbell Roberts said that is simply not credible. That does rather undermine the Minister of Housing’s case that this is his great flagship proposal.The suspicion that we have on this side of the Chamber is that in devolving both housing stock and the subsidy National is simply seeking to carve back the role the capability of Housing New Zealand to be a strong Government-delivered provider of income-related social rental housing; that National has never believed in Housing New Zealand; and that it sees Housing New Zealand as some kind of millstone around its neck. The fact that National has squeezed Housing New Zealand as some kind of cash cow over the last few years is a disgrace when we are in the middle of a housing crisis. All of those things make us on the Labour benches deeply suspicious about whether the Government genuinely wants to empower the community housing sector.There are provisions in this bill that I think underline that concern. New sections 175 to 177 inserted by clause 19 of the bill contain what have to be considered I think fairly Draconian powers of intervention. Changes have been made as a result of the Social Services Committee deliberations. If a housing NGO is in receipt of the income-related rent subsidy there is a certain level of accountability provisions. If it receives housing stock from Housing New Zealand then it gets the fullmonty. That basically gives the Minister the power to sack the boards of those organisations. That is a pretty significant power of intervention. For all the Minister’s rhetoric about wanting to support the community housing sector I question whether or not his vision is for anything other than this so-called contestable market in which housing organisations are competing for tenants and subsidies.The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I am going to call the honourable member Moana Mackey.Hon Annette King: Oh Mr Chair!MOANA MACKEY (Labour): No need to sound so disappointed Mrs King. I am sure your chance will come.I want to talk under Part 2 to section 70 in new Part 7 of the bill the Social Housing Reform (Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Amendment) Bill. New section 70 is the purpose of this part of the bill which talks about better utilisation of the community housing sector. Under new subsection (2)(b) it says the role is to “align Housing New Zealand Corporation’s role to the provision of social housing in a multiple-provider environment:” and new subsection (2)(c) says it is to “facilitate the growth of the community housing sector by enabling the extension on terms and conditions set by the joint Ministers of an income-related rent subsidy to registered community housing providers and an income-related rent to their tenants:”.We have already had a number of people discussing the fact that the funding that goes with this bill will go nowhere near doing what the bill professes to be trying to achieve. I want to talk really about what is not in this bill which is any kind of strategy or any kind of attempt to get the best use out of the community organisations that we already have rather than doing what this bill does which is simply asking them to step in and do the job that Housing New Zealand and the State are pulling away from.When the Housing Shareholders’ Advisory Group report from which much of this part of the bill came was released again another one of the strong messages from the community housing sector was: “We don’t want to do your job for you. Do not use this excuse to reduce the role of the State in social housing. Do what in fact the bill new subsection 2(b) here says”—which is aligning Housing New Zealand far better with the community housing sector in terms of the provision of social housing. But the advisory group said very clearly: “We want to do that in partnership with you. We don’t want toend up doing your job for you because you no longer want to properly fund social housing in New Zealand.”This is extremely apparent when you look at the community housing providers that the Minister himself has mentioned and some of the other big players in this area—the New Zealand Housing Foundation Habitat for Humanity and a number of housing trusts around the country. The specialist qualities and skills of these organisations is not the provision of social housing; it is the provision of first home owners’ affordable housing. Yet here we see a purpose in Part 2 of this bill that is essentially taking these community housing providers and saying that if you want to get any kind of Government money you actually have to move into social housing. Your bread and butter stuff the stuff that is desperately needed in our cities particularly in Auckland—affordable first home ownership—is the stuff the New Zealand Housing Foundation has been doing.That is the model upon which Labour’sKiwiBuild policy was based because it works. It is working right now. You have these mixed communities of private home ownership affordable first home ownership through a range of different mechanisms and then social housing that is provided by the Salvation Army Habitat for Humanity the Mental Health Foundation and a number of different organisations all coming together with the New Zealand Housing Foundation coordinating it all to build a community—not to build a suburb but to build a community.It is a model that works particularly well but unfortunately it is a model that is being seriously undermined by Part 2 of this bill because those community housing organisations if we were to use them get the most value out of what they do we would not be asking them to do social housing apart from the few that are already in that space. Those that are working in that space do a very good job but it is very small scale.Where there is real potential is where you have these community housing trusts which are actually relatively quite sizable for New Zealand that are operating at such a scale already that if we were to work with them on affordable first home ownership and then trust them to do what the New Zealand Housing Foundation has done which is to then partner with other community housing organisations to provide social housing then you would get that spectrum of housing need exactly right. You would have the bulk of the community housing trusts providing affordable homeownership dealing in that area. You then have those organisations that provide wraparound services or specialised services such as the Salvation Army working with the elderly and the Mental Health Foundation working with mental health patients.Then you come down to Housing New Zealand which really does deal with poor families families on low incomes but then it is able to pass on to those providers that provide wraparound support the tenants to whom it really does not offer an adequate service. Housing New Zealand cannot provide specialist mental health services specialist services for people who were formerly homeless or specialist services for young people. In fact Housing New Zealand cannot house people under a certain age. That is really where you would get the best out of all the different organisations.MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore): I moveThat the question be now put.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the question be now put.Ayes64New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes56New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Motion agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 396 in the name of Phil Twyford to the proposed amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 390 in the name of the Hon Dr Nick Smith to clause 19 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.Ayes56New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Noes64New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Amendment not agreed to.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 398 in the name of Phil Twyford to the proposed amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 390 in the name of the Hon Dr Nick Smith to clause 19 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.Ayes56New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Noes64New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Amendments not agreed to.The question was put that the following amendments in the name of the Hon Dr Nick Smith to the proposed amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 390 to clause 19 be agreed to:in clause 19 new section 86 after subsection (1) insert:“(1A)If a power has been delegated to the Corporation under subsection (1) the Corporation may with the consent of HNZsubdelegate that power to an employee of the Corporation or of HNZ”; andin clause 19 new section 178G(2) after “may” insert “in accordance with section 41 of the State Sector Act 1988”.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendments be agreed to.Ayes64New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes56New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Amendments agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 397 in the name of the Hon Annette King to clause 17 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendment be agreed to.Ayes56New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Noes64New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Amendment not agreed to.The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): We come to an amendment in the name of the honourable member Philip Twyford. It is an amendment to clause 19 deleting new section 115A. That is set out on Supplementary Order Paper 398. However it is identical to an amendment already agreed to. Therefore the amendment to clause 19 deleting new section 127(2)(b) set out on Supplementary Order Paper 398 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the Committee.The question was put that the remaining amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 398 in the name of Phil Twyford to clause 19 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendments be agreed to.Ayes56New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Noes64New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Amendments not agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat Part 2 as amended be agreed to.Ayes64New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes56New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Part 2 as amended agreed to.Schedule 1The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 390 in the name of the Hon Dr Nick Smith and the following amendment to theproposed amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 390 to schedule 1 be agreed to:in Schedule 1 item relating to section 61EA of the Social Security Act 1964 in new subsection (2A) replace “income-related rent and” with “and”.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendments be agreed to.Ayes64New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes56New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Amendments agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat schedule 1 as amended be agreed to.Ayes64New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes56New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Schedule 1 as amended agreed to.Schedule 2The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 390 in the name of the Hon Dr Nick Smith to schedule 2 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendments be agreed to.Ayes64New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes56New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Amendments agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat schedule 2 as amended be agreed to.Ayes64New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes56New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Schedule 2 as amended agreed to.Clauses 1 to 3Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour): I wish to speak to clause 1 which is the title of this piece of legislation. It is called the Social Housing Reform (Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Amendment) Bill. It could more properly be called the “Strip Back Housing New Zealand Bill” because that is what it does. It takesincome-related rent subsidies and moves them with a very small quantum of money across to the third sector—across to the civil society organisations that are committed to social housing. It moves the needs assessment process from Housing New Zealand to the Ministry of Social Development. Not only does some money go out of Housing New Zealand and into the third sector—which we would not object to were it not for the full implications of that which I will make plainer in a moment—but it removes the needs assessment function.No longer do people who need housing get to go to Housing New Zealand to people who have been dealing with housing needs for a very long time for a needs assessment. No they go to the Ministry of Social Development. So what does that leave Housing New Zealand with? Well under this Government it leaves Housing New Zealand with a diminishing stock of State and social housing with fewer responsibilities than it had previously and as a hollow shell of a thing which could easily be run over in future years.This bill could also be called the “Distance Government from Responsibility for Social Housing Bill”. This is where the Government decides it wants to ease itself out of the provision of social housing ease itself out of the responsibility of providing housing for our most needy and to further down the track I dare say absolve itself of this responsibility altogether. This could also be called the “Dissolve Housing New Zealand Bill” because this again is the moment when Housing New Zealand ceases to have the mandate it has had for so long—well it diminishes that mandate. It does not cease to have it in totality but it ceases to have the extent of the mandate that it had previously. This is something that we on this side of the Chamber object to profoundly.The Social Housing Reform (Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Amendment) Bill almost could sound anodyne. Unfortunately it is not. It is anything but. It requires Housing New Zealand to divest itself of some very critical functions that it had previously. It provides the grounds for reviewable tenancies. In other words any tenant in any State house—it does not matter whether they are elderly or disabled or a family with young children—may have their tenancy reviewed at any time. The Minister of Housing predicts that there might be 1000 of those in the first year. I predict that there will be many more reviews than that if this Government is re-elected next year and if it is allowed to continue with this despicable policy. This is no more than a Government washing its hands over time in a gradual way so that people will not notice so that only those who are the least able to protest will be the ones who feel the brunt of this policy and the Government will proceed to wash its hands of the responsibility for providing social housing.This bill could also be called the “Punish the Poor Bill”—the “Punish the Poor Bill”—because it takes away the security that the poor in this country who need the support of the State not just for a time but perhaps for quite a long period in their lives through one reason or another—PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—TeAtatū): I guess it is axiomatic that the titles of bills like this are somewhat euphemistic but the Social Housing Reform (Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Amendment) Bill does not really do it justice. Anyone listening to this debate will know by now that Labour members feel very strongly about the changes in this bill and that we protest what we see as a running down a winding back and a dividing up and handing around of the parts of a much-diminished Housing New Zealand.You can ask why this is important. It is important because for generations in this country people have believed that it is a core responsibility of the State to put a decent roof over the heads of people who cannot afford to buy their own home or who cannot even afford decent rental accommodation. It is one of the institutions built up by ourforebears with the express purpose of giving every child in this country the best possible start in life no matter what side of town they grow up on or what their parents do for a living. It is not perfect by any means but we believe on this side of the Chamber that in the 21st century it is still a vital role for the Government to not only ensure the funding of but also deliver State and social housing as a key way that we can level the playing field for all New Zealanders.If there is one lesson from the disastrous decade of the 1990s it is that when the State withdraws from housing policy and from the provision of housing and focuses simply on incomes policy it is an utter disaster. The policy of market rents in the 1990s had terribly damaging social consequences for a whole generation of the children of the poor in this country and we are still dealing with the consequences. A State house is not just a temporary roof over someone’s head in a time of need; it is a place to call home for people who cannot afford to buy and own their own home. And in the current market there are many many people who a generation ago should naturally have expected that being unable to buy their own home and to afford that they could have had the security and the safety of a State house. But because successive National Governments have wound down and sold off the housing stock we have a pitifully small social housing stock in this country compared with other countries that we usually compare ourselves with. Four percent of the population have a roof over their heads from State or social housing.The reason that we oppose this bill so strongly is that we believe contrary to the Minister of Housing’s explanation that he is simply trying to bring in community housing providers that this is in fact part of a systematic pattern of cutting back winding down and dismembering Housing New Zealand and we protest that very strongly.I do not know what would be a suitable name—the “Winding Down of Housing New Zealand Bill” or the “Final Solution for Housing New Zealand Thanks to the National Party Bill”. It is not an exaggeration to say that this is the end of Housing New Zealand as we know it and maybe that is a better title for this bill. It is a direct threat to the very existence of Housing New Zealand as a Government-delivered vehicle for social housing for people who cannot afford to either rent quality housing or own their own home. That is in a nutshell why we are so strongly against this bill. It is not because we are opposed to community housing organisations having more involvement or having access to the income-related rent subsidy or in fact having housing stock transferred across to them.We do not believe that the intent of this Minister in this bill is a bigger stronger better State and social housing sector. In fact we believe that it is quite the opposite. If you put this bill and the Minister’s policies the Government’s policies in context then—The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I call the Hon Annette King—no competition.Hon ANNETTE KING (Labour—Rongotai): No competition—thank you Mr Chairman. I am really disappointed that we have had no opportunity to have a response or any comment on Supplementary Order Paper 397 which I put forward. In fact I did not have the opportunity to raise it again with the Minister of Housing. He did not respond to the Supplementary Order Paper that I put forward which asked for the Government to consider local government to be considered a community housing provider. So I want to call this bill the Social Housing Reform (Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Amendment) Bill the “Lock Out Local Government Bill”. What we were asking for was for the biggest provider of social housing in New Zealand local government—in fact the Christchurch and Wellington city councils—to be consideredjust considered as social housing providers under the definition in this bill. The Minister did not address that question at all and I think it is a terrible lost opportunity.One of the things that the Government has said is that it recognised that maintaining financial viability is an issue for all social housing providers. The council here in Wellington has adopted a very conservative rental policy approach to ensure that rental housing is affordable for those who live in it. By doing that by keeping the rents at a reasonable level it is actually saving the Government millions of dollars on the accommodation supplement because if it was to be charging the sorts of rents that the others can charge then the tenants could go straight to the taxpayer and ask for an accommodation supplement. So what local government has been doing is holding the prices down to make it affordable for central government thereby saving the taxpayer from having to pay out an accommodation supplement which the Minister himself said was over $2 billion a year. It is a huge amount of money much of it going to landlords to provide rental accommodation.It seems to me that this was a great opportunity to enable local government to be considered as a social housing provider. We lost that opportunity and I think we need to rename the bill. There will be many local governments around New Zealand disappointed that it could not even get a mention—a peep a squeak—out of the Minister. Even though he could get overexcited about everything else he could not raise his voice to say: “No no we don’t agree with that for these reasons.” I would have accepted that but we got absolutely nothing from him.I also think that we ought to change the name to reflect the fact that it is now going to have the assessments done by the Ministry of Social Development. We do not have any particular difficulty with that but I do think it was an opportunity to look at the issues that arise from it. One that worries me is whether the Ministry of Social Development will have the resources to be able to provide the assessments for housing. Not every person who is in a State house or who is assessed for housing is actually on a benefit so the number of people going to the Ministry of Social Development to be assessed as being eligible for housing is going to be more than the number of people that it deals with now. We had no response. So maybe it ought to be called the “No Response Bill” because we were not told. We already know that the Ministry of Social Development is very stretched now and we were not told whether it has the resource to undertake this role.I do not think the ministry does a bad job; in fact people would like to be able to go to one place. But I think that there ought to be assurances given because goodness me we have seen changes made to Housing New Zealand that were going to provide a far better service for tenants only to find that the greater better faster more convenient—or whatever it was—service meant that the doors of Housing New Zealand were closed. The “better service” actually meant that the doors of Housing New Zealand offices were closed to the public. Well that is a great way to give better service is it not? You say: “We’re giving you fantastic service because no one’s coming through the door.” Well nobody could get through the door. Interestingly enough not even the Prime Minister or the Minister for Social Development could get through the door of a Housing New Zealand office because the door was locked and even though they knocked on it nobody came to open it.So you see the changes that this Government has made already when it comes to providing better services for tenants have been an abysmal failure. They have not improved the services for tenants. In fact people sit for hours on a telephone line waiting for someone to answer. Then they get somebody that is not a person who says that they have to ring back and so on and so on. So I think that we ought to have had an answer to that part of our questioning.We were also told that the Ministry of Social Development already does not tell all the people who come to it their entitlements—what entitlements are available to them—so we want to make sure that whoever is going to undertake this role is going to inform the people coming through the ministry’s doors of their entitlements and what they are able to have. These are some of the questions that we might have got answered if the Minister had taken a call on them rather than getting on his feet to rant and rave about how wonderful he is as a Minister of Housing.This bill has a number of things that we would support but it also has many things in it that are going to make social housing worse for New Zealanders. There is a fundamental issue here that this Government constantly overlooks which is that the people who need social housing are the people who are already the most disadvantaged in New Zealand. What they do not need is an approach that is going to review their tenancies on a regular basis—review their tenancies to see whether they are able to stay there. It is a lack of understanding that it is not just a house that they live in; it is their home. As a constituency member of Parliament I know—as I am sure many members here who are will know—that people really value where they live. They want to bring their children up there. They want to send their children to schools in their communities. They want to be part of a community.But the evilness of these reviewable tenancies is that those people can be told that they are down the road and what really worries me is that there is no protection for the most—most—vulnerable: our older New Zealanders. Why did the Government not pick up PhilTwyford’s Supplementary Order Paper and write it into the bill that the tenancies for the elderly and the disabled people in New Zealand would be protected? It is all about ideology. That is what this Government is driven by—not by the needs of people not about caring for the people who need the greatest help but by what those members’ ideology tells them about State housing and community housing.David Bennett: Rubbish!Hon ANNETTE KING: It is absolutely right David Bennett—no care or concern at all for those who need social housing. Those people are just a number to move around. They are just a number to go and interview and say: “You ought not to be in that house.”This bill is incorrectly named. It does not provide greater social housing reform—and that is in the name of the bill “reform”. That is a misnomer. This is not a reform; this is a march backwards as Phil Goff said to the Ruth Richardson era.SUE MORONEY (Labour): I rise to take a brief call on clauses 1 and 2 of the Social Housing Reform (Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Amendment) Bill as it proceeds through its Committee stage under urgency. I really do want to contest again the title of this bill. What this bill really does is create uncertainty about one of the most basic social needs that people have and that is the very human need to have a good roof over your head. The idea that this bill is somehow reforming social housing really is a misnomer. It is in fact actually taking away the very notion—a proud tradition I think that was started by a Labour Government in fact—of social security. That is the idea that people no matter what circumstances might befall them would actually have the support of the State from the cradle to the grave. And “From the cradle to the grave.” is actually a statement that was made famous by Michael Joseph Savage. It was around the idea of social security.In fact probably one of the most demonstrable images of social security and what Michael Joseph Savage meant when he talked about security from the cradle to the grave was actually around housing. Those images of the first State houses and of furniture being moved into those first State houses have in fact been lost sight of by this Government. It does not seem to understand the importance of security in thatphrase around social security. Here it is pushing through a piece of legislation under urgency that actually makes housing certainty so much less certain for some of the most vulnerable people in our society.The thing that I find deeply offensive about this is that yes it is the elderly it is the people who live with disabilities and it is the children who will suffer as a result of not having security around this most fundamental of needs. So it is not just a little bit of reform or what the name of this bill in brackets is—“(Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Amendment) Bill.” Why do Government members not say what they really mean? Why do they not say “Tenancy Insecurity”? Why do they not say “Reviewable Tenancy” instead of hiding it and disguising it under this general phrase of “Tenancy Matters”? It sounds quite benign but of course as this side of the Chamber has very ably demonstrated through the course of this debate it is not benign at all. It is an active act by the State to give insecurity of tenancy to those who are the most vulnerable in our society.So if the Government was going to be up front about what this bill was about then it would actually have the word “insecurity” in the title of this bill. It would have the word “vulnerability” in the title of this bill. It would not dare use such a benign word as “reform”. Although I suppose that those of us who learnt to understand what the word “reform” meant back in the days of Ruth Richardson et al. probably do quiver whenever we see those words.I think Bill Birch used it as well actually. He was going to just reform the labour market. It was just this benign thing—reform—but of course what everyone came to understand about that was that it meant that their wages got cut. That is what reform meant. So in this context what reform means is that people’s security of tenancy is cut. It means that they can no longer rely on knowing that their children will continue to be able to go to the local neighbourhood school because if their circumstances change then they will be moved on.I want to just reiterate what my colleague Moana Mackey said. What about the good old relationship-style model of having Housing New Zealand staff who used to negotiate this through with people? That was instead of having an 0800 number that people can never get through to where people’s calls are never returned and the faceless—CLAUDETTE HAUITI (National): I moveThat the question be now put.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the question be now put.Ayes64New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes56New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Motion agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat clause 1 be agreed to.Ayes64New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes56New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Clause 1 agreed to.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 390 in the name of the Hon Dr Nick Smith to clause 2 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendments be agreed to.Ayes64New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes56New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Amendments agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat clause 2 as amended be agreed to.Ayes64New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes56New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Clause 2 as amended agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat clause 3 be agreed to.Ayes64New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes56New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Clause 3 agreed to.Bill reported with amendment.Report adopted.Third ReadingHon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister of Housing): I moveThat the Social Housing Reform (Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Amendment) Bill be now read a third time. This bill was introduced as part of Budget 2013. It is about creating a far more innovative approach to the way in which we deliver social housing for New Zealanders and also ensuring that it is the families that have the greatest need that have priority for the Government’s large investment in housing.I want to begin by thanking and acknowledging colleagues who have played a significant role in getting to this point: my predecessor Phil Heatley and the chair of the Social Services Committee Sam Lotu-Iiga. I also want to acknowledge my Associate Minister of Housing Paula Bennett who has a huge role to play in ensuring that we get the Ministry of Social Development working more effectively with Housing New Zealand in the provision of housing. I also want to acknowledge the intellectual architects of this bill who were involved in theHome and Housed: A Vision for Social Housing in New Zealandreport from 2009 who really have applied their minds to the question of how New Zealand can lift its game in this area. I also want to acknowledge the hard work of both the Parliamentary Counsel Office and the officials from a number of Government agencies who have put an enormous amount of work into these reforms.These are the biggest changes that have occurred in 75 years in the way in which the Government provides housing for our citizens with the greatest need. It is about three very significant changes. The first of those is saying that the Government does not need to own the bricks and mortar for it to be able to provide social housing and for the community housing sector to open up to have access to income-related rents. The second substantive reform is saying that it makes far more sense for the Ministry of Social Development—which is already responsible for providing income support for families which also administers the nearly $2 billion a year that is spent on the accommodation supplement and which provides special-needs grants for people to be able to get bonds for housing—to simultaneously be doing the assessment function associated with provision of social housing. The bill also includes the provisions for reviewable tenancies which are absolutely crucial if our State housing stock is to be used by those with the highest need.I do have to say that I was disappointed during the Committee stage by the contribution from the Opposition which has on so many housing issues been so contradictory. For instance Labour members have called for the Government to do something about increasing housing supply. We then took measures to increase housing supply including a housing accord that was unanimously agreed to by Auckland Council and members opposite have done everything they can to oppose and to try to stall the provision of that housing. I find it equally ironic around the issue of loan-to-value ratios from the Reserve Bank where last year Labour was calling for the Reserve Bank to take such measures and for the last 6 months has been doing everything it can to oppose them. Exactly the same has to apply to this social housing reform bill. I have heard speech after speech from Labour members saying that they support the community social housing sector and yet they oppose the game-changing bill that this is which will actually enable the community social housing sector to play a much expanded role in addressing the housing challenges that New Zealand faces.This bill does provide for the provision of a market in social housing. It enables the Government to partner with community housing providers by making those providers eligible to receive the income-related rent subsidy that to date has been available to only those people who live in a State house. That is a big change. The income-related rent subsidy currently stands at nearly $700 million per year and it is a very significant change.In Budget 2013 we have made provision for $27 million for community housing providers as well as the $139 million that we have put into the Social Housing Fund to give a kick-start to that social housing sector. A very important part of this Government’s programmes is around better smarter public services.Hon Annette King: Oh yeah!Hon Dr NICK SMITH: We have not had the fiscal room as Annette King interjects to spend like there is no tomorrow as occurred in Labour’s period in Government. Despite the huge economic boom that occurred during Labour’s period and despite pouring huge sums of money into the public sector it was a lazy Government that did not actually apply its mind to how you could have better and smarter public services. That is why this bill transfers—Hon Annette King: Show us something smarter that you’ve done.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The member asks what is smarter about it. I will tell you what is smarter. It is smarter for my constituents in Nelson who have housing need to know that there is a single Government agency the Ministry of Social Development that will assess their need for housing. That is different from what occurs right now where a person is pushed from pillar to post between Housing New Zealand and the Ministry of Social Development. As a taxpayer I challenge members opposite. Howdoes it make sense to have public servants working in two different agencies dealing with the same challenge of social housing need? That is why I say that this reform makes such good sense.This bill also provides for reviewable tenancies. That is all about ensuring that the $16 billion that New Zealand taxpayers have invested in social housing is for those families that have the greatest need. There was a very telling point in the Committee stage. Annette King challenged me when I pointed out that in my own constituency I have got a person who did once have high need and who is now the captain of a fishing vessel earning over $100000 a year living in a State house. I said that that was wrong and I said that that house should be available for a person with higher housing need. Annette King said: “Well what’s the Government been doing over the last 4 or 5 years?”. Well actually the Government has been developing this very reform bill which will enable us to be able to give priority to families. The honest truth is that what members opposite are saying is that a person living in a State house and earning over $100000 a year has got a legal right to stay in that house for ever while there are families with higher needs. That is why I say to members opposite: do not pretend that you have got a monopoly on caring. With that sort of social policy members opposite should be honest that they are denying people with high needs access to the housing they need.I also want to challenge members opposite in terms of the commitment by this Government to ensuring that our State housing is safe and is healthy. This Government has insulated 60000 State houses—60000—in 5 years. Labour did 4000 in 9 years—4000 in 9 years. How Labour members can get up in this House and lecture us that we do not care for State housing tenants defies belief. Equally I look at the initiative I have announced in the last month—a commitment of $30 million by this Government to fencing and safety on driveways. Most New Zealanders and members of this House probably do not recognise that we actually kill more toddlers on driveways than by the very high-profile issue of violence which we must also address. When I hear members opposite giving these lectures that they alone care for children I ask what they did for 9 years when there were three reports that identified the safety of children in State houses. They did zip. I say that they have no monopoly on caring.The very last point I want to make is that during the Committee stage members opposite said that the $27 million that this Government had committed to supporting the community social housing sector was not enough. Well I say to members opposite that that is $27 million more than they committed to the community housing sector in their 9 years.This bill represents a bold and sensible reform consistent with the agenda of this Government of better public services ensuring that our assets and income go to those most in need. I commend it to the House.PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—TeAtatū): That Minister Nick Smith who has just resumed his seat is the Minister who stayed on in his ministerial home for 6 weeks after he was sacked as a Minister. And what did he tell the public about why he stayed on? Because he did not want to interrupt his children’s schooling. Is his a high-needs family? Are they a high-needs family? Apparently it is OK for Mr Smith’s family to stay in their house when he has lost his job. He had no right to stay in that house and he did it because he did not want to interrupt his children’s schooling. That is an outrageous double standard. It is typical National—one standard for him and one standard for everybody else. He should be ashamed of himself. He did not want to disrupt his children’s schooling—Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.PHIL TWYFORD: —but he is quite happy for the children of State house families—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! There is a point of order. The Hon Dr Nick Smith.Hon Dr Nick Smith: It has been a long-held and strongly defended rule that the children of members of Parliament are not brought into the debate on contentious issues in this House. [Interruption]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! That is exactly right and we will have no more of this. I will ask the member to continue. Families are not to be brought in to this debate.PHIL TWYFORD: It is an outrageous double standard that this Minister will happily impose insecurity of tenure on thousands and thousands of the most vulnerable families in our country while he applies a totally different standard to himself. He should be ashamed of himself.Reviewable tenancies is the reason that Labour is opposing this bill the Social Housing Reform (Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Amendment) Bill. It will do incalculable damage to families in this country who quite frankly deserve better. Expert submitters—the most distinguished public health researchers and academics—came along to the Social Services Committee and said that this Minister of Housing’s policy which gives himself the power to throw senior citizens out of their houses simply because there are not enough State houses will pose a public health risk.The Minister’s own intellectual mentors the Productivity Commission and the Housing Shareholders’ Advisory Group came along and explicitly advised not to implement reviewable tenancies.Hon Dr Nick Smith: Not true. Not true.PHIL TWYFORD: They said it is bad policy and that it would be bad for people. I do know not which side of his mouth the Minister is talking out of when he says it is not true but it is there in black and white in their discussions. They opposed reviewable tenancies.Hon Dr Nick Smith: Not true.PHIL TWYFORD: The Minister stands up in this House and he says: “No it is not true. These people are the intellectual architects of this policy.” Well that is a load of hogwash and it is breathtaking arrogance from that Minister. He says that everybody else has got it wrong and he is right. He has given himself the power in this bill in this bit of legislation to throw 80-year-olds out of their houses because there are not enough houses. That is an utter disgrace. We will not support that.Let us look at this bill in the context of National’s stewardship of State housing policy. Let us look at National’s record. National members came in and tightened the eligibility criteria for State houses. At the stroke of a pen they got rid of half the waiting list and the upshot of that is that all over provincial New Zealand there are hundreds of empty State houses. Perfectly good State houses are lying empty because this National Government has tightened the eligibility criteria so tightly that people who are living in poverty still cannot get a State house in many parts of provincial New Zealand.What else has the Government done? It squeezed for the first 3 years as the Salvation Army report showed a few days ago the financial lifeblood out of Housing New Zealand to pay for tax cuts for the rich. That is what it did. It sliced back the annual capital contribution by the Crown.Hon Dr Nick Smith: He knows that’s not true.PHIL TWYFORD: The figures do not lie Dr Smith. You slashed the Crown’s capital contribution and you hiked the dividends so that over the first—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order!PHIL TWYFORD: Not you Mr Assistant Speaker.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Well you are bringing me into the debate.PHIL TWYFORD: I am talking about the Minister and his Government. In the first 3 years under their stewardship they actually withdrew a net financial amount of $142 million in contrast to the Labour Government which for the 8 years or 9 years prior actually made a net positive contribution of nearly half a billion dollars. What sort of Government milks the State social housing agency in the height of a housing crisis? I will tell you. It is the same kind of Government that stands up delivers its Budget and announces a target of evicting 3000 State house tenants. That is National for you. That speaks volumes about its attitude to State house tenants.What else has the Government done? In this bill it is shifting the eligibility assessment task to the Ministry of Social Development. It is extending the income-related rent subsidy to NGOs and as we have said time and time again in this debate Labour is not opposed to that. We are not opposed in fact to the Minister’s intention to shift housing stock across to the community housing providers. That makes sense but we will not support it in the context of a diminishing pie. This Minister has overseen a reduction in the number of State houses in the last 2 years. There are 700 fewer State houses and whenever he is asked about it he blathers on about the Christchurch earthquake. Well the reduction in State houses happened after the Christchurch earthquake. He cannot blame the Christchurch earthquake for the reduction in State housing stock. He sits there shaking his head but he knows that it is true.The big lesson from the devolution of social services over the last two or three decades has been that if the funding does not follow the devolution of services and assets then those services become unsustainable the providers of those services get run ragged and constantly have to come back to the Government with a begging bowl and it is the consumers the recipients of those services who suffer. We predict that that is what will happen under this National Government’s plan to run down to wind back Housing New Zealand and to flick off 20 percent of the stock without a significant financial commitment to maintaining that stock. That is the track record of National and we predict that it will happen again in this case.The Minister’s vision is for a contestable market for social housing. What kind of planet is he on? We are talking about putting a roof over the heads of the most vulnerable people in New Zealand and he wants to set up a contestable market where Housing New Zealand competes with the Salvation Army for tenants and subsidies. What absolute lunacy. Why would we think that National would do anything different? It has run down Housing New Zealand. It has used it as a—Hon Dr Nick Smith: Have not.PHIL TWYFORD: The Minister denies it but the figures do not lie. The Minister has made a net financial withdrawal from Housing New Zealand of $142 million in the first 3 years. It is all there in black and white. The Government has used it as a cash cow to pay for its tax cuts. It has run down and reduced the number of State houses in the middle of a housing crisis it has rewritten the eligibility criteria to cut the waiting list in half and it has disenfranchised very poor people in provincial cities who have been hived off into the private rental market where they are living in substandard and overcrowded conditions while State houses lie empty in the same streets.The Government has committed $27 million over 4 years to the community housing sector and as the Salvation Army has pointed out that is lacking in any kind of credibility in terms of backing that Minister’s claim to be committed to resourcing and empowering the community housing sector. With this bill National is washing its hands of responsibility for State house tenants.This is just the latest chapter in National’s hostility to social housing and State housing. We have seen it all the way through the decades. We saw it in the 1990s when it sold off 13000 State houses and bumped up rents to market-related rents. This bill as speakers earlier in the evening have pointed out is just the latest move by National to wash its hands of responsibility for putting a roof over the heads of some of the poorest and most disadvantaged New Zealanders. We think that is a disgrace. From that Minister particularly it shows a breathtaking double standard. Labour is utterly opposed to this bill.Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie): During the 2011 election campaign I was doing human hoardings in Panmure at the Panmure roundabout when a woman approached me. She asked me to go to her house which I did that afternoon. There I saw a young woman who was 18 heavily pregnant and living with her 2-year-old in the garage of this elderly woman’s home. Her 2-year-old was half-clothed and dishevelled and had a heart condition. This young woman was due in hospital the next day to have her second child at 18. It is these people whom this bill the Social Housing Reform (Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Amendment) Bill and our Government hope to help. It is in this situation where we need to house people who are in the greatest need.Thankfully when she came out of hospital a week later we had worked with Housing New Zealand to put her into a two-bedroom apartment with her two children. Yet the week before in a street around the corner I was at a place where a woman was living in a three-bedroom home. She had been there for over 40 years her husband had passed away and the kids had left home.These two situations are the reason we need reviewable tenancies in this country. They are the reason we need to match the greatest need with the $16 billion in assets that the Minister of Housing has talked about. And Labour opposes it. Labour opposes putting those people who are in the greatest need into homes. This is not about ideology. This is not about productivity commissions. This is about real people in my electorate of Maungakiekie whom I want to help. I am sure that members all around this Chamber have cases where they have seen people who are not being housed properly whereas others are indefinitely in conditions in homes in which they do not need three bedrooms.So I support this Minister because he is hard-working he is honest and he is diligent. He has brought in a piece of legislation that will help the New Zealanders who are the most vulnerable. That is what this bill does. So for members opposite to even claim that this is about kicking out disabled and elderly people—no it is about reviewing their tenancies and making considered and informed decisions as to who in New Zealand has the highest needs.Louisa Wall: Where are they going to go?Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: The member opposite asks where they are going to go. Well there were one-bedroom apartments down the road that could quite easily have housed that elderly woman who has lived in a Housing New Zealand home for over 40 years. Labour members do not like the truth. They do not like the fact that this bill will actually help people. It is about housing those with the highest needs.This bill also works closely with the community housing sector in order to provide for those in need. We know that the community housing sector does a far better job than Housing New Zealand does to work with the needs of the disabled to work with the needs of the mentally ill and to have the wraparound services. That is why we are committing with the Minister $27 million more than the members opposite ever did in 9 years of overseeing the Treasury benches. So I say that that measure also has a positive impact on those families most in need.Finally I want to say that the third part of this bill that makes a real difference is about transferring the services around housing to the Ministry of Social Development. It is better placed to make those assessments. It is better placed because it deals on a daily basis with these people who have these high needs. That is why the transfer of these services makes logical sense. Again the Minister has laid out a very compelling case as to why the Ministry of Social Development can do that better than Housing New Zealand.I sum up by saying that this bill is about helping New Zealanders. It is not about ideologies. It is not about making personal nasty attacks on members and their children in this House. It is about housing New Zealanders and it is about doing the best for those most in need and particularly for those vulnerable children. Thank you.JACINDA ARDERN (Labour): It is my pleasure to speak to the third reading of the Social Housing Reform (Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Amendment) Bill. I think that it is really important at this point amongst all of the rhetoric coming from the Government claiming that this is really about helping those who are currently State house tenants and those who may be prospective tenants in the future that we add a layer of context really to this debate. But we must always remember that behind all of the statistics we tend to throw around in this House are individuals and people with their own stories and their own situations. I utterly accept that the member on the other side of the House Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga just shared his own. But to what degree do we sometimes forget even the context in which those stories exist?We must remember that only 5 percent—5 percent—of our housing stock in New Zealand is State housing or community housing stock. That is an incredibly small proportion of housing stock. That is why currently in New Zealand 80 percent of the children who are living in poverty are not living in State or community houses—80 percent. A large number of the children whom the Government claims it is trying to protect do not actually currently live in those houses. That is not because they are being occupied by wealthy people who are unnecessarily taking State houses; it is simply because the demand is so high and because there are so many children currently living in poverty—270000.When the Minister of Housing makes out as he did in one of his speeches that 4000 people are currently paying market rents for State houses and says that that must be indicative of there being people in State housing when they do not need State housing I think that neglects to acknowledge the fact that not everyone in a State house is there simply because of income issues. There are people who live in State houses because they simply cannot get a house in the private rental market for a whole list of reasons. It may in the past have been the case that community housing would pick up that need—for example someone exiting prison or someone with a range of issues that means it is hard for them to find a house in the private rental market.I constantly see cases through my electorate office based in central Auckland where individuals are coming in because they simply cannot find a house because for instance they have a child and no one wants to rent to someone who has a child. They are renting in a market that is so competitive now that that is the kind of basis on which a private landlord is discriminating against families.Hon Judith Collins: It’s against the law.JACINDA ARDERN: Sure the Minister may claim it is against the law but it is just like the 90-day job trial. There is a whole host of reasons why people can get sacked from a job without getting any explanation and the same goes for being denied a house. It is not that they are told that they are not getting a house because they have a child; they just do not get a phone call back. They do not even get a look in. So I amsorry Minister Collins but this is the real world and this is the existence that some people are experiencing.Hon Judith Collins: Then why don’t you do something about it Jacinda instead of whining?JACINDA ARDERN: What about—the fact that there are sole parents? How evil of them—for trying to raise their children on their own and for merely existing. So that is the point we think we need to clearly make in this argument. Perhaps you are overstating this notion that there are people in our State houses who do not have those needs.The other point I want to raise is that there will certainly be examples of tenants who recognise that they are not in the right house. In fact I had someone a little while ago now come in to see me at the office where yes I am a dirty old list MP. They came to see me not the electorate MP for some particular reason. They came to see me. This particular young woman had been living in a State house with her parents and her sibling for many years. Her parents tragically died at a very close distance to one another in timing.So there she was a very young woman herself—studying and now raising her sibling. She had a particular disability that made it hard for her to find steady employment. She recognised that she and her sibling did not require the large State house she was in any more but it was in central Auckland. She had asked to go somewhere else but the lack of State housing options meant that if she left that house she would be sent to somewhere quite some distance away—up to half an hour away from where she currently was. That meant losing every connection she had in that community. That meant being plucked from her church community the only neighbourhood she had ever known and all of her support networks as a young woman now trying to raise a younger sibling.That is really I think indicative of the issue here. National members try to make what they are saying sound reasonable and fair but in reality reviewable tenancies in a market where there are just no houses available means that some of these individuals are just being chucked into a circumstance where finding housing is going to be very very difficult particularly in the area where I live and particularly in view of the fact that there were 697 fewer State houses last year because of this Government selling off State houses. I know that in central Auckland the Government is hocking them off wildly. In fact there are a number of houses where the Government just refuses to keep any upkeep going because they are all earmarked for sale. So as much as the Minister talks about the standard of State housing he is deliberately running down stock in the knowledge that the Government is simply going to sell it.We also know that there has been a significant reduction in capital contributions to State housing and that is something that has been brought up by the Salvation Army. So yes amongst all of this debate yes absolutely—Labour could have done more to ensure that the quality of our State housing stock was kept up. Yes there is no denying it. But there is also no denying the fact that when we came into office National had sold 13000 State houses—13000 State houses. You can hardly blame Labour at that time for being vehemently focused on trying to renew our State housing stock because there was a massive gap when we came into office at that point.So sure the Government can talk about everything it has done on insulation—fantastic; not denying that that was incredibly important—but in doing so it refuses to acknowledge that in amongst all of that it has been reducing the stock. It has been upgrading what we have got but reducing the stock overall. So again the context in which we are debating this bill is a context in which actually we are simply dividing the pie amongst a larger number of people and the pie is getting smaller. That is why thisidea of it simply being common sense to continually review tenancies refuses to acknowledge that actually the environment in which this Government is doing it means that people will be in very insecure unstable situations as a consequence.If the Minister claims that it is absolutely disgraceful to claim that this Government would throw out for instance—well two groups that we can easily identify are going to probably be on fixed incomes: those with long-term disabilities for instance who are likely to be on a supported living payment and for instance people who have retired and are now on a fixed income in their retirement. You can probably be pretty certain that the circumstances of those individuals are not going to change. If the Government is telling us that those individuals are unlikely to be subjected to this bill why not put it into the bill? If it is ludicrous of us to even suggest it might happen to those individuals why not put the safe clause into the legislation or just accept one of the Supplementary Order Papers that Labour has put forward. The fact that the Government has refused to do that but then tries to tell us that we are scaremongering says to me why should we not raise that question? If the Government is so defensive about putting it into law it is only right that we hold some suspicions over what its plans are in that regard.Two larger elements of the bill have been debated at length. One is the idea that social housing be subject to income-related rents—absolutely. We are pleased that that is now available. We have some concerns about the pressure that that will put on social housing providers but we will keep a close watch on that. In terms of the second element—the fact that the Ministry of Social Development will be providing the assessment or overseeing the assessment regime—yes you can certainly make an argument that that provides some efficiencies. But we will always maintain that unless you put in place the infrastructure and support around Work and Income staff to do that job—and anyone who has anything to do with their local Work and Income office will know the constraints that those staff are under—and second as long as the ministry has the kind of leadership that denies individuals the dignity they deserve when interfacing with those services we will continue to be very very watchful of the role that the ministry plays in conducting these assessments.METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green): I just want to make a reasonably short contribution on this legislation. We do not support the Social Housing Reform (Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Amendment) Bill and will continue to vote against it. But there are some very interesting issues that have been raised around this legislation and just around the housing debate in general.We met today with a number of leaders of the church community and I understand they met with other political parties as well over the day. Housing was an issue that was raised by them and by us—it is a major issue for the country—and it was noted that it was very good that housing is a major issue across the political spectrum and across the community the community sector ordinary families and the private sector. There is at least some advantage in the fact that we are all discussing the issues around housing and the complexity of the housing problem and the housing crisis that we have. Most agree that there is a housing crisis. We might disagree on the extent. I certainly understand that National has said over and over that it does not believe there is a crisis but it certainly knows that there is a deficit in housing and that there is a real issue for those who are homeless and those who are the most vulnerable. So we have at least made some progress in the last little while on developing some kind of common understanding that at least housing is critical.Where we have not reached any real consensus at all is on what to do about it. Unfortunately this legislation is a really clear example of the political divide because the primary purpose of this legislation is to prevent more people from getting access to social housing. That is what the reviewable tenancy process does. It is primarilydesigned to move people out of the existing social housing stock and into the arms of other organisations which are not being properly funded and cannot cope with the influx. It is really unfortunate the housing legislation that we debate when we all agree that there is a housing issue we all agree that vulnerable families who are in urgent need of housing are not getting it we all agree that there is a deficit of housing at the affordable end of the market and we all understand—at least I would imagine if others have access to the facts—that homeownership amongst the middle class is also declining. This is all publicly available information. Yet the one piece of legislation that we are debating is legislation that will reduce the security of the most vulnerable families in the very difficult housing environments that they have. It is a real tragedy that that is what we are spending our time on.The arguments for this legislation from the National members have been around the greatest need. There is the greatest need argument. There is also the market rents argument. We heard from Sam Lotu-Iiga about how social housing should be made available to those with the greatest need. You might agree with that as a general statement but it depends on your definition of greatest need. If the intention is to squeeze more and more people out of social housing and for the Government to reduce its involvement in social housing then the criteria for meeting this threshold of greatest need becomes tighter and tighter and tighter so fewer and fewer people meet that threshold and have access. The words are all fine to use; the devil in these matters is always in the detail.I think about a couple of cases that I have at the moment which I am managing through my office in Dunedin. I mentioned in the second reading debate this case of a woman who has been working. She and her husband have been working very hard. They have two children one of whom has a very severe disability. They take Child Youth and Family kids so they are fostering other children in order to assist those children and the State in taking care of children who are in State care. Her husband has a very severe fatal form of cancer and is no longer able to work. She has to care for her children and for her husband and is no longer able to work. So their ability to access housing in the private market has now been completely constrained and she does not meet the criteria for greatest need. She does not meet the criteria for greatest need. Sam Lotu-Iiga can stand up and say that this housing is available to those who have the greatest need. To her it is not. To her it is not so she has to get intervention. She requires an MP to intervene on her behalf in order to try to get her further up the list so that even if she does not meet the National Government’s criteria of greatest need she at least has some chance of getting into social housing.Now of course once this legislation passes she may well get access to a State house but she has no security of tenure. There is absolutely no way that she can be assured that she can raise her children and the children in State care whom she takes care of and care for her husband towards the end of his life with any sense of security. If for example her income changes slightly—perhaps she gets a part-time job because things are going well—then she could well be subject to a review and therefore to market rents.One of the other parts of the detail I guess that the National Party members are failing to describe is this. They talk about how so many people who are renting State houses are paying market rents and say that this is a sign that these people are excessively wealthy and are not entitled therefore to any form of social assistance. Let us just remember that the market rents approach or calculation kicks in at about the level of New Zealand superannuation. For a single person that is about $350-odd a week and for a married couple it is around $500 and a bit a week. At that point when a married couple is earning a bit over $500 a week they are subject to a market rentcalculation by Housing New Zealand. They will not be entitled to an income-related rent subsidy. They will have to pay a market rent according to Housing New Zealand at that low-income threshold.These families who are in desperate need who are trying to find some stability in their lives who are looking to social housing to provide that stability so they can get back on their feet a little bit—when they do start to get back on their feet they are penalised for doing OK. They are penalised for earning a little bit of extra income. They are penalised for getting a part-time job. They are penalised for having some sense of security. They are penalised for doing well enough—perhaps they have recovered from a mental illness for example.Actually I have another case like this. It is a woman who is living in a two-bedroom State house with three children and who is desperate to move. She is desperate to move into a bigger State home in the neighbourhood in which she has built some strong support. There are State houses in her neighbourhood two streets away from where she lives now that are on the market. They are three-bedroom State homes they are on the market and they are being sold. She is desperate to get into a bigger home so she can better take care of her family.She was told by Housing New Zealand that she did not qualify for this greatest need threshold because she does not have a mental illness. She is just managing to care for her children settle herself in her community and make sure her kids go to school. She is just managing to keep her head above water and she is being punished for that because of the threshold of greatest need. If she was to go and get herself a part-time job in order to bring a little bit more income into her home so that she can take better care of her kids she risks being subject to a market rent calculation that could mean that her rent rockets up and she would then be unable to afford to live in that State house. Not only that she would also be subject to a reviewable tenancy by this Government that could see her lose her home.This is the consequence of this legislation. These are the real cases the real people whom this legislation will impose an enormous burden on. Those families who are just able to get by who are doing as well as they can in the circumstances who love their kids who do everything they can to care for their kids who are trying to find those little steps those small steps to get themselves into a better situation—at every point where they try to improve they are punished by this Government for doing so. This legislation with its reviewable tenancies does exactly that all over again. It is a tragic piece of legislation. It will not help these families at all. It will squeeze more and more families out of housing and will drive poverty and drive child poverty. This Government really does not care about that at all. Thank you.MELISSA LEE (National): It is a pleasure to rise to take a short call on the third reading of the Social Housing Reform (Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Amendment) Bill. I would like to congratulate the Minister of Housing on the work done on this social housing reform. Our social housing package is a key part of this National-led Government’s promise to deliver better public services to the people of New Zealand.I was sitting here listening to the debate earlier and I have to react to one speech where I think Moana Mackey actually said we should do what Labour did for housing. Well let me say no thank you. For 9 years Labour had the Treasury benches. I would like to compare the work that we are doing in this National-led Government with what Labour did in the 9 years that it was in Government. No thank you we will not be following what Labour did for housing.I listened to a lot of examples that different members have quoted. I too have an example. Last Friday I visited a constituent in a house where there are 19 people livingin a three-bedroom home. Some people are living in the garage. A lot of the teenage children are living on the couches in the living room. There is a brother and sister-in-law who have four children living in a single room that is slightly wider than my outstretched arms. They have three single beds. There was not a lot of room to move. They are desperate to find a house but there is not one for them. They are on the waiting list. I wish I could actually help them.Earlier the Minister gave an example of a man in his electorate. When he got the housing help he probably did need it but now he is still living in a Housing New Zealand home when he is earning a lot of money. He is able to afford a home while there are people in my electorate who are living in a single room—a couple with four children. Each parent is sleeping on a single bed with one child each and with a newborn baby who is less than 30 days old. That is a need. This bill is about helping people like that in the electorate that I am based in Mt Albert and getting them into a house because they are the people who are most in need. I commend this bill. This is a great bill. Thank you very much.DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): The Social Housing Reform (Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Amendment) Bill is simply objectionable and in some parts it is Draconian in two fundamental ways. The first is its adopting of the policy of reviewable rentals based solely on the assessed ability of tenants to move into private accommodation either rental or homeownership when in the main population centres especially Auckland and Christchurch the cost of homes has exploded and the rents for rental properties if they can be found have rocketed out of control. The second way is by reducing the role and nature of Housing New Zealand and pushing rental housing responsibility on to community organisations some of which clearly are not capable of fulfilling that role.Not only are there very extensive powers of investigation of any tenant to see whether they are eligible for income-related housing but also several new clauses set up Housing New Zealand effectively as New Zealand’s housing police and authorise Housing New Zealand to set aside the Privacy Act. Under this bill Housing New Zealand may by written notice require information from any person concerning housing assessment reviews the only exceptions being in cases of genuine privilege and financial information such as financial transactions. That still leaves a lot of information that any person must provide so that anyone can give most information they have about a Housing New Zealand tenant as though they are second-class citizens in that respect without fear of infringing important human rights as set out in the Privacy Act.This is typical of the Government’s attitude to Housing New Zealand tenants—second-class citizens. The offences are Draconian. They provide for imprisonment for up to 12 months or a fine not exceeding $5000 or both. The only redeeming provisions in this Draconian part of the legislation are those relating to the code of conduct and to the role of the Privacy Commissioner but these do not alter the fact that human rights are trampled by this bill. The Government’s whole approach is wrong and the bill will have to be repealed when possible because it attacks some of the most vulnerable people in the community—those who cannot afford to buy a home in today’s market or cannot afford the spiralling rents in the private rental market especially of course in Auckland and in Christchurch.The basic problem is that people who are assessed as capable of obtaining private sector accommodation are in many many cases not able to find alternative rental properties or in fact not able to pay exorbitant rents in Christchurch or Auckland especially. I know from my personal experience in talking with people and seeing people who come to me in Christchurch that it is difficult to obtain alternative accommodation in Christchurch that the rents are exorbitant and that these peoplewould have a real problem. National still has the gall to stand a candidate in the Christchurch East by-election while this obnoxious bill proceeds to enactment on a slender majority. Christchurch East will be the worst-affected electorate in this country by this thoughtless bill. As if the effects of the Canterbury earthquakes are not enough this bill will be another blow for the many Housing New Zealand tenants in Christchurch and in Christchurch East in particular who are struggling to recover.Rather than provide more rental housing the Government seeks to suppress demand by moving people out of State houses if Housing New Zealand assesses that they are financially able to do so. This is not by itself a satisfactory reason and there is no adequate reason in principle or policy for that to be the only or main criteria for a policy that will force people to move. Despite the Government’s claims that it will take a lenient approach people will inevitably be nudged out of their homes—effectively bullied out of their homes—because the Government is unwilling to build more homes and that is the real issue. This Government is in fact unwilling to meet the demand and instead will artificially suppress demand rather than meeting the housing needs of people who need it. There are good reasons for people especially the elderly to choose to remain in State house rentals even if they are assessed as being able to move elsewhere when it is not necessarily the best option for them.The constant threat of regular reviews will lead to significant social problems. Health education and personal security will suffer and community well-being will suffer. All this stress especially for elderly and other vulnerable people cannot be done in the lenient way asserted by this Government. What is needed is a genuine social housing service—not just buildings but a service to customers who will pay market rents when they can afford them or income-related rents when they cannot. Those needs should be matched with the housing best suited to them not just shunted out of the State system into the hands of others who may or may not be best suited for the purpose.The Government will transfer large sums of money to community housing organisations through subsidies to registered providers. These organisations will own the housing funded or gifted by the Government and there will be no State asset in return. The provisions in this bill to deal with incompetent providers and with those that fail altogether are confused and inadequate—not nearly good enough to justify the application of such huge amounts of public money.The most glaring omission is that the bill does not provide for local councils to be community providers at all despite the Christchurch City Council the council where I live being the second-largest provider after Housing New Zealand and despite other councils such as those in Wellington Auckland and elsewhere having a long and well-proven record of excellence in social housing provision. The Government should actually be funding such councils with long-term low-interest loans—and that is New Zealand First’s policy—so that they can provide elderly persons’ housing and public rental housing and also provide the many support services needed by a genuine housing service provider. As I have said that is what is really needed here. And they can coordinate this with other council plans and services—things this Government simply does not understand.This misguided bill actually proves that without any doubt. It is a bill with many risks: economic risks for the Government social risks for our housing-stressed communities and major risks for the health and well-being of thousands of Kiwis who are most at risk from a “do not care” attitude of an incompetent Government. This bill should not be enacted for all of those reasons. It is quite simply misconceived. It does not build on the experience of the past; it sails out into an uncertain future with many risks—far too many risks—for this bill to be viable. This is an obnoxious bill it is a bad piece of legislation and it should simply not be enacted.Hon PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei): I would like to stand to congratulate the Minister of Housing Nick Smith on introducing a number of aspects in this piece of legislation the Social Housing Reform (Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Amendment) Bill that will see the improvement of the operation of the social housing and affordable housing sector right across New Zealand involving both the Government and community housing providers.But there are two particular aspects that I would like to congratulate the Minister on. First of all those who are genuinely in need will be helped by the State and these community housing providers during the duration of their need. That means that when households become self-sufficient earning over $100000 or when their state of health is such that they can move to the private sector they are able to move on and open up the State house for someone else who is in line and needing a State house. Gone are the days when someone can sit in a State house for 30 or 40 years when their incomes have improved the family has left home and they can easily rent privately or in fact purchase their own home. We see that as part of a mutual obligation.It is very interesting that Dr Nick Smith will oversee this year the last State house in New Zealand to be insulated that can be insulated. Although the Labour Party in 9 years in Government talked a lot I believe about how it supported State housing and State house tenants it left tens of thousands of State houses uninsulated. That is quite unbelievable is it not that those members harp on about State housing and their love for the tenants but Labour could not do something as simple as insulating a house. The cost is $3000 or $4000—not a lot—per house but it was not prepared to do that. Nick Smith will see every State house in New Zealand insulated that can be insulated.The mutual obligation there is of course that he will stand firmly against those few State house tenants involved in gangs and cooking P in the kitchen. He will stand against those tenants. He will say: “You can’t beat up the neighbours. You can’t disturb the neighbours. You can’t trade in illegal goods inside your State house.” So there is a big tidy-up of the sector and I must say that the large majority of State house tenants are grateful for those two things: first of all that their houses are being insulated after all those years of living in the cold under the Labour Government and secondly that those neighbours who do stir up trouble those gangs that do cook P and that run up and down the streets beating up their neighbours are being brought under control by Housing New Zealand. So I congratulate Nick Smith on the new reviewable tenancies on upgrading those State houses and on bringing those mutual obligations forward.Secondly I would like to congratulate the Minister in supporting this bill on the beginning of bringing in the community housing sector with some seriousness; forging the relationship if you like between Government and iwi and community housing organisations; and making sure that community housing organisations their expertise their assets their cash and their tenants are brought together with Housing New Zealand’s assets Housing New Zealand’s expertise and Housing New Zealand’s tenants. So it is about forging that relationship.Labour members talked a lot about that but never passed income-related rents for the community housing sector in 9 years. Of course now that we are doing that—we are funding the community housing sector with income-related rents funding—according to the Labour members it is not enough. Of course zero was not enough when they were in Government for 9 years and I am delighted that Nick Smith is actually walking the Labour members’ talking. He is doing everything they waxed lyrical about for 9 years. He is going ahead and doing it. The Labour members have no solutions. They sat on their hands for 9 years. I congratulate Dr Nick Smith on all that he is doing in Nelson and right across New Zealand.SUE MORONEY (Labour): Musical chairs—it was a game that was fun was not it at birthday parties when we were growing up? That idea that you put a bunch of chairs out there the music started and when the music stopped there was one less chair than there were party-goers so someone dipped out. Then another chair was taken away the music would start again and on it would go. That is what this Government is doing with social housing. It is taking the chair away and making sure that there is less and less provision for higher and higher demand and need. That is what the Labour Party finds so offensive about this bill the Social Housing Reform (Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Amendment) Bill.It does not even aim to address the stripping out of capital funding that this Government has undertaken with Housing New Zealand. I think that through the course of the debate that we heard earlier the Minister of Housing did not even refute the facts that the Salvation Army put before this country just last week. The facts were that the National-led Government has provided the Housing New Zealand Corporation with only $129 million in capital contributions in its first 3 years and yet it required $271 million in dividends. That is a result of a net $142 million withdrawal of funding from the organisation. It is not just a withdrawal of funds; it is a withdrawal from the building of State houses and the replenishment and the increasing of the stock of social housing in this country.Until the Government gets to grips with that fact then Sam Lotu-Iiga’s young pregnant woman living in the garage has not got a hope. She is not going to actually get a decent roof over the head of her young 2-year-old whom he described never mind the forthcoming baby because that Government is not doing anything to add to the social housing stock. So there was all the weeping and wailing but although I am sure it was genuine—because I am sure that when that woman dragged Sam Lotu-Iiga into that garage to see that situation he genuinely felt horror at what he saw—this is not the solution. This is not the solution.If there are people who have high incomes who should no longer be in State houses and who have other options to go to then why is the Government not doing that good old-fashioned thing of actually getting the Housing New Zealand staff to negotiate with them talk to them and find something that is more suitable for their needs? That is what used to happen under Labour. That is back in the day though when you could actually talk to a real person from Housing New Zealand. That is back in the day before the Minister of Housing who introduced this bill into the House took the face of Housing New Zealand away and turned it into an 0800 number. Actually that might have been from the member who has just resumed his seat Phil Heatley. I am quite unfairly lambasting the current Minister for this. But this Government has now hidden Housing New Zealand behind a wall of phone banks. The 0800 number which not only any average citizen cannot get through to and get an answer from but I know that members opposite will be having the same problem as well which is that even MPs’ offices cannot get an answer from the 0800 number of Housing New Zealand.Hon Judith Collins: The electorate MPs can.SUE MORONEY: Oh well Judith Collins says that electorate MPs can. Well she is wrong—she is absolutely wrong about that. Electorate MPs and list MPs and councillors and New Zealanders are actually finding that their phone calls are not getting answered and they are not able to get through to the person with the answer that they need. If Judith Collins does not accept that that is the reality then she is just demonstrating over and over again how out of touch she is and the entire National Government is—Hon Judith Collins: Clearly out of touch!SUE MORONEY: —with what is going on. Well those members are out of touch and I think that that demonstrates it. Judith Collins thinks that the 0800 number is working perfectly well.Hon Judith Collins: Well it is.SUE MORONEY: “It is.” she says. Well can all those New Zealanders who are listening to this debate please email Judith.Collins@parliament.govt.nz and tell her about the many occasions on which they have not got satisfaction from using the 0800 number because she does not seem to know. She is completely out of touch with it. So the Government has hidden the Housing New Zealand that used to engage with tenants—[Interruption] Oh look Judith Collins is showing out of touch she is all over again. According to herJudith.Collins@parliament.govt.nz everything is tickety-boo with Housing New Zealand. I would just like to ask every New Zealander who has ever had a problem with Housing New Zealand to email her now. Or she is actually quite active on Twitter so get on Twitter and tell her your problems. I think it is @JudithCollins is it? Is that the Twitter—Hon Maryan Street: That’ll do.SUE MORONEY: That will do.Hon Maryan Street: Just look for it.SUE MORONEY: Just look for it—look for the nastiest comments you can get on Twitter and you will get on to that member’s Twitter feed. Just get on to Twitter right now New Zealanders and give Judith Collins all of your very real-life experiences of dealing with Housing New Zealand because it seems that she actually needs to hear them right now. That Minister is completely out of touch. She thinks that everything is sorted with housing in New Zealand. She does not get it and it is like the Government’s denial of the housing crisis. Have we ever heard that? Its absolute denial that there is a housing crisis in New Zealand.So again any New Zealander who is finding it tough to buy a home or to rent a home contact Judith.Collins@parliament.govt.nz or get on Twitter—Twitter will do just as well. I think she really does need to know exactly what is going on in the housing market because those members do not seem to get it that there is a housing crisis.But back to this bill. This bill does not actually address the needs that New Zealanders have—it certainly does not address the needs that New Zealanders have. In fact what it does is it makes the tenancies of some of the most vulnerable in our society so much less secure. What more fundamental social need is there in this country than the right of people to have a decent roof over their heads? What is more fundamental than the right of children to know that they are going to be able to go to their neighbourhood school because they are not going to be moved on unfairly by a faceless nameless bureaucrat in Housing New Zealand who has not even got the decency to just go and have a conversation go and actually have a negotiation or go and talk with people about their options. Housing New Zealand officials are no longer going to need to do that because this Government wants to take the lazy approach of actually legislating people’s rights away instead. It is actually legislating security of tenancy away from these people and just saying that yes they are the most vulnerable in our society but really it is not going to take the time—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member.Debate interrupted.Sitting suspended from 10 p.m. to 9.a.m. (Wednesday)