King Annette: Social Housing Reform (Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Amendment) Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeKing Annette: Social Housing Reform (Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Amendment) Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 16 May 2013. Volume:690;Page:10098. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon ANNETTE KING (Labour—Rongotai): Well we have just heard a speech that was full of fake sound and fury straight from the research notes. Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga read them—page 1 page 2 and page 3. I have to say how disappointed I am in a member who has been here 4½ years and still has to read out the research notes. He could not even make a speech straight from his heart. He had to read his fake outrage off a note.I have to tell you that this is the Nick Smith quinella—the second bill we have had on housing this evening. I have to tell you it is a real gamble because what we know about Nick Smith is he never does his homework he makes up fake figures and he goes around telling people one thing and then the evidence comes out under something else. So I say to people look out for the bodgie figures and look out for the bodgie evidence as to why we need the change in this bill the Social Housing Reform (Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Amendment) Bill. He is “Mr Old Flip-Flop” because he was part of a Government that got rid of income-related rents. It hated income-related rents. It did not like State house tenants getting a fair deal under a National Government. Suddenly he embraces income-related rents and would like many more to have it in the other parts of the housing sector.There are three main parts to this bill as I see it: powers for Housing New Zealand to be able to review State house tenancies to ensure appropriate tenants are matched to appropriate housing; secondly to enable Housing New Zealand functions to be transferred to another Government agency at a later date; and thirdly to provide a framework for the provision of social housing by multi-providers in the social market. So I said “Let’s go straight to the regulatory impact statements and see what they have got to say about it.” because what I learnt with Nick Smith is that the regulatory impact statement on his Better Local Government legislation was the most shocking one I have ever seen. It tore apart his local government reforms. It said that there had been no work done on it and no evidence and that was backed up over and over again. Well what did I find Dr Smith? Your regulatory impact statements are not on the website. You say in the bill here: “Look up the website. You’ll find them.” So I went to the Clerk’s Office and the staff had to find the statements. They had to run them off and put some on the Table. Why did they not have the regulatory impact statements available?Well I had a wee look at them. There are two of them. One is from the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment. What does it say? It says there is limitation to the analysis provided—there is limitation. Once again Nick Smith has a limitation to the evidence provided. The ministry said it is the early days of reform and most of the decisions being sought from Cabinet at this time—they have not all been finished you see. The Ministry said it also has not done the consultation. It has consulted with Government departments and has had “targeted informal engagement” with the community housing sector but “given the Budget sensitivity of the options outlined in this paper non-government stakeholders have not been consulted on the options.” They have not been consulted and it is dated 22 March. They have not been consulted and what is written on it? “Budget Sensitive.” So they were not consulted.What does the second one say? It is from Housing New Zealand and I find this very interesting because it goes through and it just happens to set out some of the risks and—Hon Dr Nick Smith: You can do better than this Annette.Hon ANNETTE KING: Oh no you do not want to hear about the regulatory impact statements because these are the independent statements about your lousy work. That is why he does not want to hear about them.And what does this one say? Housing New Zealand talks about what will happen in terms of the information-gathering powers. What are the costs? Well the costs will be increased accommodation supplement payments to tenants moving from State to private housing. That is one of the costs. Secondly there will be increased administration costs; and thirdly cost to the clients complying with information requirements. And then there will be costs to those other than tenants who are asked to provide information. None of that was put forward by Dr Smith today—not one of the costs or problems outlined. The Government hid the regulatory impact statements so the House here which has to debate it tonight could not get it.Well I will tell you what this bill is. This bill is the “Get Rid of Housing New Zealand Bill”. This is the first step in getting rid of Housing New Zealand. You see the National Party has always hated State housing. Right back to the 1930s when a Labour Government brought them in the National Party has—Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: Were you alive back then?Hon ANNETTE KING: Oh and that member probably lived in one but now of course he would like to get rid of them. You see National has never wanted to have State housing. So this is the beginning of getting rid of Housing New Zealand. It wants to flog it off. Why is the Government not honest? As Phil Twyford said why not go the whole hog and flog off Housing New Zealand to any old agency out there the private sector which could just carry on providing houses for it. You could probably get Beerfoot and Thompson or whatever it is called—Phil Twyford: Barfoot and Thompson.Hon ANNETTE KING: It could probably do it. Why not be honest Minister? This is step one in getting rid of Housing New Zealand. The Government wants to get rid of Housing New Zealand and it started it some time ago. Mind you the poor old hapless previous Minister could not get any traction on anything. He was so set in his ways and so unable to move that all he could do was talk about it. Nick Smith—I have to give him credit—does know how to make things happen. Even if they are terrible things he does know how to make things happen.So what did the Government do? The first thing it did was it closed the Housing New Zealand offices. Nobody can go to a Housing New Zealand office now unless they can get through on the 0880 number and get an appointment. You know the funniest thing happened recently. The Prime Minister and the Minister for Social Development were going through a town in New Zealand and they saw a Housing New Zealand office. They rocked up to the door and they thought: “Let’s pop in. Let’s pop in and say hello. You know we’re the Prime Minister and the Minister for Social Development—very important people. We’ll just pop into Housing New Zealand’s office.” What happened? They got to the door and the door was locked. They could not get through the door. They tapped on the door and nobody opened it.You see that is what has happened to Housing New Zealand offices. The Government closed the doors. It did not want—Hon Dr Nick Smith: Rubbish.Hon ANNETTE KING: Oh “Rubbish.” says the Minister. How long has he been the Minister? Oh maybe he gets in the door. He has to give them a ring on the 0800 number and make an appointment and then he gets in the door. The Government closed the office and it turned the service into an 0800 number. Well what a problem it had with that—thousands of calls that were never picked up and thousands of people who did not get any service at all. It was an absolute mess and this was Better Public Services. Those were the first steps. Now we have this bill and in this bill are the next steps in getting rid of Housing New Zealand. I think this is a very sad day. We will oppose this bill because the Government wants to get rid of Housing New Zealand. Why not be more honest?And why are we rushing this bill through at all? Part of it does not even come into effect until 14 April 2014—next year. That is when the Government wants to ensure that it can transfer the functions to another Government department. We now know that it is the Ministry of Social Development. I actually think it is quite a sensible idea to have the Ministry of Social Development giving advice because we used to have a housing advisory service that was available to anybody who needed advice. That was closed down as part of the downgrading of Housing New Zealand. So it is going to transfer it to the ministry. It does not happen until 14 April—if it happens by then—so what is the rush in terms of this bill? And the ministry is going to be able to provide information and Housing New Zealand will be just another provider of social housing—just another provider. That is right Minister is it not? It will be just another provider.I support the community housing sector as well but I have a question for this Minister: can those who have got income-related rent transferred to the community sector living in one of its homes when they are assessed as no longer having income-related rent be removed from the community house of a community housing provider? I cannot find out whether that is the fact. If it is the fact what right does the Government have to control who lives in the homes of the Salvation Army the Housing Foundation or Habitat for Humanity? What right does it have to interfere in that? That is something that needs to be answered. In conclusion the Minister talked about quality not quantity. This Government has never been able to provide either. We will get that only under a Labour Government.