Davidson Marama: Social Housing Reform (Transaction Mandate) Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeDavidson Marama: Social Housing Reform (Transaction Mandate) Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 17 February 2016. Volume:711;Page:9079. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]MARAMA DAVIDSON (Green): Marama Davidson standing on behalf of the Green Party to take a short call on the Social Housing Reform (Transaction Mandate) Bill in the Committee stage of this debate. The Green Party kaupapa of social responsibility and just distribution and appropriate decision-making is why with every fibre of my body I oppose this part of the bill and indeed the whole bill. Part 1 of this bill essentially gives unprecedented power to two people—to two people in New Zealand—and we are supposed to believe and trust that those two Ministers will have every good wish towards the well-being of some of our lowest-income New Zealanders and some of our New Zealanders who have struggled mostly to try to find homes for themselves and their families. Part 1 is important to me to oppose because of this transfer—this extraordinary transfer—of power. Again I support what the previous members have stated in terms of the reason why we should not trust this transfer of power. Certainly the Skycity deal is one such example where that deal was put through behind closed doors.I mentioned in my maiden speech the struggles that not just I have faced but also my friends whānau and community have faced to find good safe housing. I would like to say to my networks that Part 1 of this bill—Part 1 of this whole bill—is a good thing for those of us who are really struggling to find housing but I cannot go with Part 1 of this bill which transfers that power to say: “This is in your best interests.” I cannot do that and so I do take a short call to point out that we oppose that.I think about the drivers of this bill. Is it to uphold the legacy that the previous members have referred to which we all know about which was about providing good safe homes for New Zealanders? No it is not so I oppose Part 1 of this bill on that notion.I particularly want to mention and pay tribute to the voices of the people of the Glen Innes community in reference to Part 1 of this bill. Their voices were not listened to were not heard and only very minimally if at all were given a place in this House in any of the debates.I refer again to why the Green Party is strongly opposing this bill. This is not a bill that upholds social responsibility. It is upholding profit-seeking intentions of property developers and the ideology where the Government wishes to flick off its responsibility for the provision of housing. The Green Party opposes this bill because we also stand for appropriate decision-making and this bill also oversteps appropriate decision-making particularly where legislation impacts on people. Those people most affected should have a strong stand in this legislation and they have been very clear.Those in the community of Glen Innes have been very clear that this bill has been sold to them—these reforms and this transfer of power have been sold to them—as if it is going to uplift and revitalise disinterested communities. They have been vindicated by the ongoing overstepping and ongoing bad treatment of their community and they are well aware that that is not the intention behind this bill and that is not the intention behind Part 1 of this bill.The New Zealand I hope for as a mother with young children and with intimate knowledge of exactly how hard it is to find housing and exactly what we do need for solutions to our housing crisis—I want a New Zealand that truly is going to be driven by our most struggling. I know that Part 1 of this bill and indeed this whole bill is not about that. Therefore I strongly oppose Part 1 of this bill.